RE: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL

As usual when replying from here, replies prefixed with PM:

--
Peter Mount
Enterprise Support
Maidstone Borough Council
Any views stated are my own, and not those of Maidstone Borough Council.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 4:26 PM
To: Chris
Cc: Bruce Momjian; pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org;
pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL

PM: [snip]

For the purpose at hand, I think it would be OK to have a
"relhaschildren" field that is set true when the first child is created
and then never changed. If you have a table that once had children but
has none at the moment, then you pay the price of looking through
pg_inherits; but the case that we're really concerned about (a pure SQL,
no-inheritance table) would still win.

PM: Perhaps get vacuum to check for any children when it's set, and if
it finds none, it clears the flag?