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 th
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 D&D thing, and
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 th
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 abou
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
> > > 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 s
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
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 ar
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
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:
> 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 syntac
> 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
I'm a little out of my league on this list, but I thought I might discuss a
problem I'm having since it seems to have come up here recently. I have read
the archives w/ respect to the inheritance mechanism, the problems with it,
etc. But I still think it would be a useful thing to have in Postgr
13 matches
Mail list logo
