On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, great summary. Isn't the bottom-line issue the limitation of not
> being able to create an index that spans tables?
That would be one way to fix one particular problem. I can think of
another way to fix it right off-hand. (Put the parent's part of the data
in the parent table, the child's part in the child table and join.) But
we haven't completely worked out what effect this has on other parts of
the system, or what effect we're even looking for.
An an example, at this point some people (including me) feel that
constraints (*all* constraints) placed on a supertable should always
work. This means that one should not be able to insert into a subtable
anything that would break a supertable constraint, and one should not be
able to add a constraint to a supertable that's violated by a subtable.
If after more work on this everybody agrees that this is really the way
to go, then that will have implications on the solution we pick.
There's also the matter of digging up the SQL standards for table
inheritance and deciding how closely we want to follow that. (Though
I think that that's best left to after a fairly formal logical
analysis of what table inheritance should be.)
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