Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > +1/2 (Since I don't like inheritence)
> >
> > IMHO we ought to try to keep the _tutorial_ free of things that are
> > generally considered against relational design.
>
> Where is it written that inheritance is against relational design?
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:03:30AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > +1/2 (Since I don't like inheritence)
> > >
> > > IMHO we ought to try to keep the _tutorial_ free of things that
> > > are generally considered against relational
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:31:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What *is* broken is table inheritance, and the docs need to reflect
> > this.
>
> The combination of inheritance with certain other features is broken,
> yes, and the docs do reflect that (see
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What *is* broken is table inheritance, and the docs need to reflect
> this.
The combination of inheritance with certain other features is broken,
yes, and the docs do reflect that (see the bottom of
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/ddl-inherit.h
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't consider the concept broken. The implementation is, in fact,
> broken, and putting that broken piece in the tutorial is, imnsho, a
> bad mistake.
If we're going to remove from the tutorial every feature for which any
aspect is deemed by someone t
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 01:25:56PM -0700, elein wrote:
> Perhaps after OSCON I can work with fetter on getting the
> documentation clarified. OK?
Sounds like fun. There are all kinds of object-relational concepts
other than this broken piece. Which ones are good to highlight in
that tutorial?
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:30:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't consider the concept broken. The implementation is, in
> > fact, broken, and putting that broken piece in the tutorial is,
> > imnsho, a bad mistake.
>
> If we're going to remove from
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:30:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we're going to remove from the tutorial every feature for which
>> any aspect is deemed by someone to be broken, the tutorial is liable
>> to become quite short.
> Are there other pieces that
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:58:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:30:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> If we're going to remove from the tutorial every feature for
> >> which any aspect is deemed by someone to be broken, the tutorial
