Re: CREATE TABLE ... INHERITS (parent INCLUDING xxx)

From: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CREATE TABLE ... INHERITS (parent INCLUDING xxx)
Date: 2009-11-02 07:55:59
Message-ID: 20091102165559.C6C7.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Should we have "INHERITS ( parent INCLUDING xxx )" syntax ?
>
> No. That would imply that the user has some control over what is
> inherited and what isn't, which would be a complete mess.

Hmmm, but users can already control using LIKE INCLUDING clause what is
inherited and what isn't. Also, we don't inherit anything from INHERITS
clause in default. We have nothing to lose even if we support INHERITS
+ INCLUDING, no? And there are certain merits; we can avoid unexpected
log messages and don't have to repeat the parent name in DDL.

Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-11-02 08:25:22 Re: operator exclusion constraints
Previous Message Itagaki Takahiro 2009-11-02 07:44:05 Re: Patch for automated partitioning