Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>Tom Lane writes:
>> It seems that in pre-7.0 Postgres, this works:
>> create table one(id int default 1, descr text);
>> create table two(id int default 2, tag text) inherits (one);
>> with the net effect that table "two" has just one "id" column with
>> default value 2.
>Although the liberty to do anything you want seems appealing at first, I
>would think that allowing this is not correct from an OO point of view.
I don't agree; this is equivalent to redefinition of a feature (=method) in
a descendant class, which is perfectly acceptable so long as the feature's
signature (equivalent to column type) remains unchanged.
Oliver Elphick Oliver(dot)Elphick(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP: 1024R/32B8FAA1: 97 EA 1D 47 72 3F 28 47 6B 7E 39 CC 56 E4 C1 47
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on
your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge
him, and he will direct your paths." Proverbs 3:5,6
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jeroen Eitjes||Date: 2001-03-29 13:30:37|
|Subject: Problem with group by in conjuction with Views|
|Previous:||From: Oliver Elphick||Date: 2001-03-29 13:27:03|
|Subject: Re: Changing the default value of an inherited column |