Re: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR

2001-07-11 Thread Jan Wieck
David Bennett wrote: > Alex, > > I think I fully understand your position. Let me put wrap up our > conversation so far. > [lots of arguments for recurringchar] All I've seen up to now is that you continue to mix up simplification on the user side with data and content control

RE: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR

2001-07-10 Thread David Bennett
2001 4:49 PM To: Rod Taylor Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR "Rod Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is rather like MySQL's enum. Yes. If we were going to do anything like this, I'd vote f

RE: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR

2001-07-10 Thread David Bennett
Alex, I think I fully understand your position. Let me put wrap up our conversation so far. Given the application requirements: 1) contacts have a type. 2) new types must be added on the fly as needed. 3) types names rarely change. 4) the number of contacts should scale to support m

RE: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR

2001-07-10 Thread David Bennett
> various disagreements and "quotes"... I agree that you disagree :) RECURRINGCHAR does not break normal form. It simply optimizes the storage of reference values (recurring keys). This allows for the use of 'long words' as reference values with a great deal of system storage savings and

RE: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR

2001-07-10 Thread David Bennett
>> It's apparent that there is a lot of duplicate space used in the storage >> of this information. The idea is if order.status was stored as a >> RECURRINGCHAR >> then the only data stored for the row would be a reference to the value of >> the column. The actual values would be stored in a sepa

Re: AW: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR

2001-07-09 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes: > SQL92 gives this restriction on WHERE clauses for updatable views: > > d) If the immediately contained in QS imme- > diately contains a WC, then no leaf generally > underlying table of QS shall be a generally underlying table >

Re: AW: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR

2001-07-09 Thread Jan Wieck
Tom Lane wrote: > Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote: > >> The most prominent of the "interesting uses" probably beeing when the views > >> are part of the authorization system, since views are the only standardized > >> mechanism to restrict access at the r

Re: AW: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR

2001-07-09 Thread Tom Lane
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote: >> The most prominent of the "interesting uses" probably beeing when the views >> are part of the authorization system, since views are the only standardized >> mechanism to restrict access at the row level. > True, and oft

Re: AW: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR

2001-07-09 Thread Hannu Krosing
Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote: > > > > My feeling is that the restrictions are stringent enough to eliminate > > most of the interesting uses of views, and hence an automatic rule > > creation feature is not nearly as useful/important as it appears at > > first glance. > > The most prominent of

AW: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR

2001-07-09 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas SB
> My feeling is that the restrictions are stringent enough to eliminate > most of the interesting uses of views, and hence an automatic rule > creation feature is not nearly as useful/important as it appears at > first glance. The most prominent of the "interesting uses" probably beeing when th

Re: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR

2001-07-07 Thread Tom Lane
"Rod Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anyway, the point is that some of the simple views should be straight > forward to reversing automatically if someone has the will and the > time it can be done. A while back a list of 'views which cannot be > reversed' was created and included things su

Re: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR

2001-07-07 Thread Rod Taylor
> > > This would be a potential feature of being able to insert into > views > > > in general. Reversing the CREATE VIEW statement to accept > inserts, > > > deletes and updates. > > Definitely not a 'potential' feature, but a existing and documented > one. > > Read up on rules, especially 'ON IN

Re: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR

2001-07-07 Thread Rod Taylor
> > This would be a potential feature of being able to insert into views > > in general. Reversing the CREATE VIEW statement to accept inserts, > > deletes and updates. > Definitely not a 'potential' feature, but a existing and documented one. > Read up on rules, especially 'ON INSERT DO INSTEAD'

Re: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR

2001-07-07 Thread Alex Pilosov
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Rod Taylor wrote: > This would be a potential feature of being able to insert into views > in general. Reversing the CREATE VIEW statement to accept inserts, > deletes and updates. Definitely not a 'potential' feature, but a existing and documented one. Read up on rules, esp

Re: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR

2001-07-07 Thread Rod Taylor
- From: "Alex Pilosov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "David Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 9:24 PM Subject: RE: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR > On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, David Bennett wrote:

RE: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR

2001-07-07 Thread Alex Pilosov
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, David Bennett wrote: > - > In a nutshell you are recommending: > - > > create table contact_type ( > codeint2, > typechar(16), > PRIMARY KEY ( code ) > ); > > create table contact ( > numberserial, > name char(32), >

RE: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR

2001-07-06 Thread Alex Pilosov
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, David Bennett wrote: > In either model you would: > > update master_table set status='OPEN_PENDING_SOMETHING' where status='OPEN' > > This would not change, in fact, even in a normalized design you > wouldn't change the lookup table (parent) key. Perhaps you are > mi

Re: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR

2001-07-03 Thread Tom Lane
"Rod Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is rather like MySQL's enum. Yes. If we were going to do anything like this, I'd vote for stealing the "enum" API, lock stock and barrel --- might as well be compatible. regards, tom lane ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR

2001-07-03 Thread Rod Taylor
eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 6:05 PM Subject: [HACKERS] New SQL Datatype RECURRINGCHAR > Idea for a new SQL Data