On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 23:42, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Curt Sampson wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > Yea, you have to question what value the discussion has, really. We
> > > have users of inheritance that like it. If we can get a TODO item out
> > > of the disucssion, great, but there doesn't seem to be any direction of
> > > where the discussion is heading.
> >
> > Summary:
> >
> > 1. The current implementation is broken.
> >
> > 2. We have no proper description of how a "fixed" implementation
> > should work.
> >
> > 3. It's hard to fix the current implementation without such a
> > description.
> >
> > 4. Thus, we are in other messages here trying to work out the
> > model and come up with such a description.
> >
> > 5. The people working this out at the moment appear to be me,
> > Greg Copeland and Hannu Krosing.
>
> OK, great summary. Isn't the bottom-line issue the limitation of not
> being able to create an index that spans tables? Is there any way to
> implement that? We have sequences that can span tables. Can that help
> us?
>
Actually, I'm not sure that is the bottom line. One of the reasons I
ask so many questions is because I'm trying to understand what the "is"
case is. For me, that is important before I can understand, not only
what the "to-be" picture should be, but what needs to be done to get
there.
Because of that, I tend to agree with Curt. We need to fill in 1, 2,
and 3. As for item number 4, I was hoping that other references would
at least help us understand a "defacto" implementation.
Long story short, for me, it's easy to superficially agree that we need
indexes that span tables but I still have no idea if that really
constitutes "the bottom-line".
Regards,Greg Copeland