Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)


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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-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 Feldtmann, Germany

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Lamar OwenDate: 2000-06-26 18:49:00
Subject: [Fwd: RE: config.sub and config.guess for PostgreSQL compilation on Linux S/390]
Previous:From: Mikheev, VadimDate: 2000-06-26 18:25:50
Subject: RE: Big 7.1 open items

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Denis PerchineDate: 2000-06-27 05:04:41
Subject: Large objects in one table patch
Previous:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2000-06-26 10:18:48
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] CLASSOID patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group