On 8 Aug 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> The main difference (in the inheritance part) is that a relation does
> not have one fixed set of fields, but can have any additional fields
> added in inherited tables and still be part of to the base table as
> well.
This is trivial to do with a view.
> Actually I am not against ripping out the current broken implementation,
> but not before there has been a new, correct model available for at
> least two releses, so that people have had time to switch over.
So in other words, you want to let people use broken stuff, rather
than switch to another method, currently available, that has all
of the functionality but is not broken. I guess that's an opinion, all right.
> VIEWs are broken too, in the sense that you can't insert into them
> without doing some hard work.
Views are missing functionality. That is rather different from
making other tables lie about what they contain, essentially
destroying the requested data integrity.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're
alllight. --XTC