| From: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Inheritance |
| Date: | 2002-08-15 01:20:01 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.44.0208151017410.463-100000@angelic.cynic.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's nonlocal constraints that are the problem, and here foreign keys
> and UNIQUE constraints are certainly the canonical examples. Both of
> these would be largely solved with table-spanning indexes I think.
Note that the other obvious way to solve this would be to store all of
the information inherited from the parent in the parent table, so that
you don't have to do anything special to make all of the constraints and
whatnot apply.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ngpg | 2002-08-15 01:57:51 | Re: Open 7.3 items |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2002-08-15 01:05:05 | Re: another multibyte question |