| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera Munoz <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
| 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 16:02:43 |
| Message-ID: | 4553.1069344163@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera Munoz <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> 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.
> No way, because of multiple inheritance. Each child should have an
> attparentnum, which would point to the parent's attnum for this to work ...
Hm, good point. And I think we merge identically-named columns
inherited from different parents, which would mean that "attparentnum"
wouldn't have a unique value anyway.
Perhaps rearranging a parent's columns shouldn't have *any* direct
effect on a child? Seems ugly though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2003-11-20 16:32:24 | Re: [PERFORM] More detail on settings for pgavd? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera Munoz | 2003-11-20 15:57:16 | Re: logical column position |