Re: [HACKERS] Creating temp tables inside read only transactions
От | Darren Duncan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Creating temp tables inside read only transactions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4E1A8532.1090707@darrenduncan.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Creating temp tables inside read only transactions (Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Creating temp tables inside read only transactions
Re: [HACKERS] Creating temp tables inside read only transactions |
Список | pgsql-general |
Christopher Browne wrote: > Vis-a-vis the attempt to do nested naming, that is "ns1.ns2.table1", > there's a pretty good reason NOT to support that, namely that this > breaks relational handling of tables. PostgreSQL is a *relational* > database system, hence it's preferable for structures to be > relational, as opposed to hierarchical, which is what any of the > suggested nestings are. I won't argue with whether or not nested naming is a good idea, but I will argue with your other comment about breaking relational handling. A relational database is a database in which all data is kept in relation-typed variables, which SQL calls tables, and you can perform all queries and updates with just relation-valued expressions and statements. Organizing the tables into a multi-level namespace, either fixed-depth or variable-depth, rather than using a flat namespace, does not make the database any less relational, because the above definition and any others still hold. The "less relational" argument above is a red herring or distraction. One can argue against namespace nesting just fine without saying that. -- Darren Duncan
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: