Re: Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql OO Patch

From: Chris Bitmead <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com>
To: Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>
Cc: Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>, Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql OO Patch
Date: 2000-05-22 11:25:18
Message-ID: 3929191E.52CA8D20@bitmead.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Mike Mascari wrote:

> At a minimum, it seems to me, the backend must support the
> concept of multiple tuples with different attributes at the
> relation level since concurrency and rollback-ability of ALTER
> TABLE ADD COLUMN will cause two concurrent transactions to see a
> single relation with different attributes. It doesn't seem a
> large leap to support this concept for OO purposes from "leaf" to
> "base". For "base" to "leaf" type queries, wouldn't it be
> acceptable to return the base attributes only, as long as the
> equivalent of run-time type information could be had from the
> OID?

How are you going to be able to go shape.display() and have it work for
a triangle, if the triangle's apex's weren't retrieved?

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Horák Daniel 2000-05-22 11:49:10 RE: pgsql for win
Previous Message Mike Mascari 2000-05-22 10:12:40 Re: Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql OO Patch

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Bitmead 2000-05-22 11:30:46 Re: OO Patch
Previous Message Chris Bitmead 2000-05-22 11:18:25 Re: Thus spoke SQL3 (on OO)