Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> Of course we could go the other way and remove support for VIEW's as
> they can be done using a table and a ON SELECT DO INSTEAD rule.
Two points for Hannu ;-)
Seriously, this entire thread seems a waste of bandwidth to me.
Inheritance as a feature isn't costing us anything very noticeable
to maintain, and so I see no credible argument for expending the
effort to rip it out --- even if I placed zero value on the annoyance
factor for users who are depending on it. (Which I surely don't.)
It's true that upgrading inheritance to handle features like cross-table
uniqueness constraints or cross-table foreign keys is not trivial. But
I don't know of any way to handle those problems in bog-standard SQL92
either. The fact that we don't have a solution to those issues at
present doesn't strike me as a reason to rip out the functionality we
In short: give it a rest. There's lots of things we could be more
productively arguing about. Think about which type conversions should
be implicit, if you need a topic ...
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Thomas Lockhart||Date: 2002-07-31 06:18:41|
|Subject: Re: Outer join differences|
|Previous:||From: Thomas Lockhart||Date: 2002-07-31 06:13:38|
|Subject: Re: WAL file location|