Re: partitioning using dblink

> > >> You should have. The system enforces (or tries to) that a view can't be
> > >> part of an inheritance hierarchy, but you seem to have managed to find a
> > >> sequence of operations that avoids those checks. Turning a table into a
> > >> view with a manual CREATE RULE operation has always been a kluge, and
> > >> it's missing a check that the table isn't part of an inheritance tree.

Is there a "specific" reason why views can't be part of an inheritance tree?
I mean: it's that we "don't want" it or it would be just difficult to implement?

___________________________________
L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail: http://it.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

Scara Maccai <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> writes:
> Is there a "specific" reason why views can't be part of an inheritance tree?
> I mean: it's that we "don't want" it or it would be just difficult to implement?

It would certainly require a lot of rethinking of assumptions, in the
planner and elsewhere. I have no good idea of how large the actual
patch might end up being if it were attempted. But it's not something
that's high on anyone's wish-list, and there's a chance that it could
interfere with development of inheritance behaviors that people *do*
care about (like partitioning).

regards, tom lane