| From: | Alvaro Herrera Munoz <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: logical column position |
| Date: | 2003-11-20 15:57:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20031120155716.GC24110@dcc.uchile.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 10:39:24AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > (c) Do I need to consider inheritance?
>
> Yes. I think it'd be good if things were constrained so that columns
> 1..n in a parent table always matched columns 1..n in every child,
> which is not true now after adding/dropping columns. That would make it
> easier/cheaper/more reliable to match up which child columns are to be
> referenced in an inherited query (see adjust_inherited_attrs).
No way, because of multiple inheritance. Each child should have an
attparentnum, which would point to the parent's attnum for this to work ...
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[(at)]dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>)
"Aprender sin pensar es intil; pensar sin aprender, peligroso" (Confucio)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-20 16:02:43 | Re: logical column position |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-20 15:49:26 | Re: ALTER COLUMN/logical column position |