On 8 Aug 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> For me they are _not_ two different models but rather one
> object-relational model.
Well, given that we've already demonstrated two rather different ways
of saying "the same thing," I think we have two models happening here.
However, feel free to explain your "object-relational model" in more
detail, including its advantages over the ordinary relational model.
> "Object Relational Dbms: Tracking the Next Great Wave" by Michael
> Stonebraker, Dorothy Moore (Contributor), Paul Brown
> ISBN: 1558604529
>
> I'm sure you find the requested arguments against Date there ;)
Unfortunately, this is a bit hard to order in Japan. So before I go
spend 8000 yen and wait a couple of weeks to get hold of a copy, I'd
be interested in just what is there that would dispute Date's points.
Looking through the index on Amazon.com, it appears that the book
devotes, at the very most, eight pages to table inheritance. What does
it say about it?
> The table inheritance _implementation_ in PG is in fact broken in
> several ways, most notably in not enforcing uniqueness over all
> inherited tables and not inheriting other constraints.
Right. I'm glad we agree on that.
> But as you often like to emphasize, model and implementation _are_
> different things.
Ok. I won't object too much to the model, but let's get rid of this
severely broken implementation, unless there are some prospects
for fixing it. How's that?
BTW, can someone explain the model for inherited tables here? Is
it really just as described _The Third Manifesto_, trivial syntactic
sugar over the relational model? Or is it supposed to offer something
that the relational model doesn't do very simply? (Not to mention
correctly, in the case of postgres.)
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
