| From: | M(dot)Feldtmann(at)t-online(dot)de (Marten Feldtmann) |
|---|---|
| To: | "Chris Bitmead" <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Chris Bitmead" <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com>, "pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Postgres Hackers List" <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] CLASSOID patch |
| Date: | 2000-06-26 18:39:19 |
| Message-ID: | 136dfK-0cLUqvC@fwd07.sul.t-online.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:24:56 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
>
>I was thinking this myself today. Mainly because I wonder if in the
>future there may be support for more than one table implementing a
>particular class type. On the other hand the oid is a reference to the
Which is very common in wrapper software technology ! Normally only
the first implementation is done this way: one class - one table. But
this is only a very naive design decision. Then when the performance
lacks hierarchy tree are converted into one table ... etc
Just my thoughts about something like this ....
Marten
Marten Feldtmann, Germany
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2000-06-26 18:49:00 | [Fwd: RE: config.sub and config.guess for PostgreSQL compilation on Linux S/390] |
| Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2000-06-26 18:25:50 | RE: Big 7.1 open items |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Denis Perchine | 2000-06-27 05:04:41 | Large objects in one table patch |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-06-26 10:18:48 | RE: [HACKERS] CLASSOID patch |