On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 11:17, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 09:39:06AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 23:43, Curt Sampson wrote:
> > > Just my opinion of course, but I think it would be best to have a
> > > detailed description of how everything in inheritance is supposed to
> > > work, write a set of tests from that, and then fix the implementation to
> > > conform to the tests.
> > >
> > > And I think a detailed description comes most easily when you have
> > > a logical model to work from.
> >
> > I completely agree. This is why I want/wanted to pursue the theory and
> > existing implementations angle.
>
> In theory, it sounds like a good idea. In practice ... ;-)
>
> > Seems like everyone trying to jump on "index spanning" is premature.
>
> Seems like some people haven't looked at the history of the OO
> implementation in PostgreSQL.
>
> Actually, I think you'll find that once a PostgreSQL DBA gets to
> the point of designing a sufficently complex schema that inheritance
> might be useful, they quickly bump up against the lack of index and
> constraint spanning (most notably, referential integrity), and stop
Only took a few minutes to write a couple of triggers to manage most of
my needs. Not very generic, but gives me cross table uniqueness ;)
