On Wednesday 18 June 2003 06:20 am, Tm wrote:
> On June 17, 2003 12:23 pm, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Personally, I'm not a fan of inherited tables; I think they muddy up
> > the relationality of SQL without providing any additional
>
> We actually are doing what the original poster is in the process o
Tm,
> This would work though it's not very scaleable. Our current system makes
> all elements of a service into what we call an 'attribute'. The
> attributes are defined in a table, and attached to each account type,
> and turned on or off, and twiddled with various definitions such as
> term/peri
On June 17, 2003 12:23 pm, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Personally, I'm not a fan of inherited tables; I think they muddy up
> the relationality of SQL without providing any additional
We actually are doing what the original poster is in the process of
doing; we have an ISP billing system based on postgr
Michael,
> (BTW, if this isn't the correct forum to post this in, please let me know.)
This is the right forum.
> I thought of defining the different services in their tables, all inherited
> from the base "Service" table, and then insert rows for the different
> services of each (for instance "
