From: | Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, chris(at)bitmead(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: INHERITS doesn't offer enough functionality |
Date: | 2000-10-18 15:40:31 |
Message-ID: | 20001018084031.H272@fw.wintelcom.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> [001018 04:59] wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I noticed that INHERITS doesn't propogate indecies, It'd be nice
> >> > if there was an toption to do so.
> >>
> >> Yep it would. Are you volunteering?
> >>
> >
> >Added to TODO:
> >
> > * Allow inherited tables to inherit index
>
> What is the spec for this?
>
> Do you mean that inheriting tables should share a single index with their
> ancestors, or that each descendant should get a separate index on the
> same pattern as its ancestors'?
>
> With the former, the inherited index could be used to enforce a primary
> key over a whole inheritance hierarchy, and would presumable make it
> easier to implement RI against an inheritance hierarchy. Is this what
> you have in mind?
Not really, it's more of a convience issue for me, a 'derived table'
should inherit the attributes of the 'base table' (including indecies),
having an index shared between two tables is an interesting idea but
not what I had in mind.
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net|alfred(at)freebsd(dot)org]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-18 15:41:13 | Re: time stops within transaction |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-10-18 15:38:22 | Re: time stops within transaction |