Summary:
1. The current implementation is broken.
2. We have no proper description of how a fixed implementation
should work.
3. It's hard to fix the current implementation without such a
description.
4. Thus, we are in other messages here trying to work
Hannu Krosing wrote:
I guess what he meant was that you were arguing for arguments sake (mine
is better than yours! Yes it is! Yes it is! ...)
That's the dictionary definition of the phrase.
and not to get to some
solution,
and that's the source of the frustration. I only re-subscribed
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 23:42, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Curt Sampson wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Yea, you have to question what value the discussion has, really. We
have users of inheritance that like it. If we can get a TODO item out
of the disucssion, great, but
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Agreed. Most of this would be easy to implement for curent
implementation (but perhaps no more efficient than when done by manually
added rules/triggers) if constraints could contain subqueries.
I don't understand what a constraint containing a subquery
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:07 pm, Curt Sampson wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lamar Owen wrote:
Curt, I think his reply stems from his frustration of chosen content in
many emails that originate from you. We all pretty well understand
postgres has a broken feature. We all understand
Greg Copeland wrote:
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 00:16, Curt Sampson wrote:
I will revise my opinion the instant someone shows me something that I
can't do relationally, or is easy to implement with inheritance, and
difficult with relational methods.
The traditional view approach requires
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 01:40 am, Greg Copeland wrote:
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 00:33, Curt Sampson wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
Give it up. You're acting like a turkey. If you aren't, skin yourself
a new non-turkey skin.
Since he appears not to be able to avoid
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 18:48, Don Baccus wrote:
Greg Copeland wrote:
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 00:16, Curt Sampson wrote:
...
And yes I know he's not reading my mail and no, don't bother repeating
this to him, he'll just continue to ignore the point.
I suspect that he will still read your
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lamar Owen wrote:
Curt, I think his reply stems from his frustration of chosen content in
many emails that originate from you. We all pretty well understand
postgres has a broken feature. We all understand you see zero value in
Knowing Don to some extent, I can say
It is hard to argue with this logic.
---
Curt Sampson wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lamar Owen wrote:
Curt, I think his reply stems from his frustration of chosen content in
many emails that originate from you. We
Bruce Momjian wrote:
It is hard to argue with this logic.
If he were actually making a technical argument I might actually agree
with you myself.
Thus far all he's done is argue from authority, and in tight circles to
boot.
Which means the term is an accurate description of his behavior ...
Yea, you have to question what value the discussion has, really. We
have users of inheritance that like it. If we can get a TODO item out
of the disucssion, great, but there doesn't seem to be any direction of
where the discussion is heading.
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Yea, you have to question what value the discussion has, really. We
have users of inheritance that like it. If we can get a TODO item out
of the disucssion, great, but there doesn't seem to be any direction of
where the discussion is heading.
Curt Sampson wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Yea, you have to question what value the discussion has, really. We
have users of inheritance that like it. If we can get a TODO item out
of the disucssion, great, but there doesn't seem to be any direction of
where the
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
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 05:07, Curt Sampson wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Lamar Owen wrote:
Curt, I think his reply stems from his frustration of chosen content in
many emails that originate from you. We all pretty well understand
postgres has a broken feature. We all understand you see
Curt Sampson wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
Oh? Ok, please translate the following into equivalant SQL that
does not use a view:
...
Granulize GRANT to the table column level.
Can you please show me the code for that? After all, I showed you
all of my code when doing
Tom Lane wrote:
Curt Sampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
Granulize GRANT to the table column level.
Can you please show me the code for that?
It's required by the SQL spec. PG hasn't got it, but the spec is
perfectly clear about how it should be
Am Montag, 12. August 2002 08:02 schrieb Don Baccus:
Curt Sampson wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
I've been wanting to point out that SQL views are really, when
scrutinized, just syntactic sugar ...
Oh? Ok, please translate the following into equivalant SQL that
does not
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
Obviously it would require extending SQL, but since you in part argue
that SQL sucks in regard to the relational model this shouldn't matter,
right?
Well, if we're going to go so far as to get rid of SQL, we can go all
the way with the DD thing, and
On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 11:38, Mario Weilguni wrote:
Am Montag, 12. August 2002 08:02 schrieb Don Baccus:
Curt Sampson wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
I've been wanting to point out that SQL views are really, when
scrutinized, just syntactic sugar ...
Oh? Ok, please
On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 11:52, Curt Sampson wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
Obviously it would require extending SQL, but since you in part argue
that SQL sucks in regard to the relational model this shouldn't matter,
right?
Well, if we're going to go so far as to get rid
On 12 Aug 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
Are you saying that inheritance in SQL is something fundamentally
different than inheritance in OO languages ?
Yes.
(For example, the distinction
between types and instances of types is critical in OO theory. What are
the TI equivalants of this?)
On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 00:29, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 11:52, Curt Sampson wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
[snip]
But anyway, I have no particularly huge objection to syntatic sugar
alone. I do have objections to it when it's not saving much typing. (It
is
On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 15:00, Greg Copeland wrote:
...
Look a little deeper here. In other OO implementations, I can define a
class (say class a) which has no instances (abstract base class).
Furthermore, I can take this case and use it for building blocks
(assuming multiple inheritance is
On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 10:39, Oliver Elphick wrote:
On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 15:00, Greg Copeland wrote:
How exactly would you create an abstract base class for table type?
CREATE TABLE abstract_base (
cols ...,
CONSTRAINT No data allowed in table abstract_base! CHECK (1 = 0)
)
This
On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 17:30, Greg Copeland wrote:
On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 10:39, Oliver Elphick wrote:
On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 15:00, Greg Copeland wrote:
How exactly would you create an abstract base class for table type?
CREATE TABLE abstract_base (
cols ...,
CONSTRAINT No data
Ok, big bundled up reply here to various people.
From: Greg Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What makes things more confusing is poor understanding of a feature, not
the feature itself.
Agreed. Just because a feature may not be well understood by the masses
doesn't mean the feature is
Curt Sampson wrote:
... the bugs in the postgres implementation
of table inheritance, I've found the relational model much easier
to use for solving problems.
No one has argued that the shortcomings (not bugs, really, just things
left out) makes the current implementation of very limited
On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 20:34, Curt Sampson wrote:
Ok, big bundled up reply here to various people.
From: Greg Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What makes things more confusing is poor understanding of a feature, not
the feature itself.
Agreed. Just because a feature may not be well
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
It's a pity, as I pointed out the reduction in joins alone would really
be great.
So implement the same thing relationally, and get your reduction
in joins. There are tricks, discussed on this very list in the
last few days, that would let you do what
On 12 Aug 2002, Greg Copeland wrote:
You're constantly confusing Postgres' implementation with a desired
implementation.
No. I'm still trying to figure out what the desired implementation
actually is. This is documented nowhere.
If you're so keen on examples, please provide one that
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
Give it up. You're acting like a turkey. If you aren't, skin yourself
a new non-turkey skin.
Since he appears not to be able to avoid abusive ad hominem attacks,
I'm now sending mail with [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the From: header
to /dev/null. If there's a
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 00:33, Curt Sampson wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
Give it up. You're acting like a turkey. If you aren't, skin yourself
a new non-turkey skin.
Since he appears not to be able to avoid abusive ad hominem attacks,
I'm now sending mail with [EMAIL
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 00:16, Curt Sampson wrote:
I will revise my opinion the instant someone shows me something that I
can't do relationally, or is easy to implement with inheritance, and
difficult with relational methods. Now you know what you need to do, and
if you have no example, we can
On 13 Aug 2002, Greg Copeland wrote:
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 00:16, Curt Sampson wrote:
I will revise my opinion the instant someone shows me something that I
can't do relationally, or is easy to implement with inheritance, and
difficult with relational methods. Now you know what you need
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 10:16, Curt Sampson wrote:
On 12 Aug 2002, Greg Copeland wrote:
...
Are we then assuming that tuples in the child tables do not appear
in the base table? That's more or less what I'd assumed when I
originally heard about table inheritance (after all, instantiating
So my initial thinking is that this is a profound problem. But after a little
more thought, I can make the question_id field of the question table be a
SERIAL type and the primary key. That way, when I insert rows into either
the position question or the binary question table, it will be
Curt Sampson wrote:
The problem is, table inheritance is just syntatic sugar for creating
separate tables, and a view that does a UNION SELECT on them all
together, projecting only the common columns.
I've been wanting to point out that SQL views are really, when
scrutinized, just syntactic
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
I've been wanting to point out that SQL views are really, when
scrutinized, just syntactic sugar ...
Oh? Ok, please translate the following into equivalant SQL that
does not use a view:
CREATE TABLE t1 (key serial, value1 text, value2 text);
Curt Sampson wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
I've been wanting to point out that SQL views are really, when
scrutinized, just syntactic sugar ...
Oh? Ok, please translate the following into equivalant SQL that
does not use a view:
CREATE TABLE t1 (key serial,
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
Oh? Ok, please translate the following into equivalant SQL that
does not use a view:
...
Granulize GRANT to the table column level.
Can you please show me the code for that? After all, I showed you
all of my code when doing equivalants.
Or are you
Curt Sampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
Granulize GRANT to the table column level.
Can you please show me the code for that?
It's required by the SQL spec. PG hasn't got it, but the spec is
perfectly clear about how it should be done.
I think this is
Oh? Ok, please translate the following into equivalant SQL that
does not use a view:
...
Granulize GRANT to the table column level.
Can you please show me the code for that? After all, I showed you
all of my code when doing equivalants.
Or are you saying that it's syntactic sugar
44 matches
Mail list logo
