| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "Robert B(dot) Easter" <reaster(at)comptechnews(dot)com>, Postgres Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL3 UNDER |
| Date: | 2000-05-23 06:40:42 |
| Message-ID: | 392A27EA.7182B07B@tm.ee |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Chris Bitmead wrote:
>
> "Robert B. Easter" wrote:
> > This contrasts with UNDER, where a subtable does maintain a link to its
> > supertable in order to cascade inserts etc to the supertable for the subrow it
> > inherited.
>
> What you have just described for the behaviour of UNDER (as opposed to
> implementation) is just how INHERITS works now. i.e. you can't destroy
> the parent unless there are no children.
We could supply DROP TABLE parent CASCADE; syntax to destroy bot parent and
all
inherited tables.
---------------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias Urlichs | 2000-05-23 06:40:54 | Re: A test to add to the crashme test |
| Previous Message | Robert B. Easter | 2000-05-23 06:16:52 | Re: SQL3 UNDER |