> > The table inheritance _implementation_ in PG is in fact broken in
> > several ways, most notably in not enforcing uniqueness over all
> > inherited tables and not inheriting other constraints.
>
> Right. I'm glad we agree on that.
>
> > But as you often like to emphasize, model and implementation _are_
> > different things.
>
> Ok. I won't object too much to the model, but let's get rid of this
> severely broken implementation, unless there are some prospects
> for fixing it. How's that?
>
Wasn't that what was seemingly agreed on by pretty much everyone else on
this thread long ago? The current implementation is problematic and
that it needs to be fixed.
As far as I can tell, the only difference of opinion here is, you seem
to hold zero value in table inheritance while others do see value. At
this point in time, can't you guys agree to disagree and leave the
majority of this thread behind us?
> BTW, can someone explain the model for inherited tables here? Is
> it really just as described _The Third Manifesto_, trivial syntactic
> sugar over the relational model? Or is it supposed to offer something
> that the relational model doesn't do very simply? (Not to mention
> correctly, in the case of postgres.)
I would, however, enjoy seeing the theory portion continued as long as
it were kept at the theoretical level. After all, I think everyone
agreed that Postgres' implementation is broken. It doesn't seem like we
need to keep beating that horse.
Any takers? ;)
Greg