Re: INHERITS doesn't offer enough functionality

Alfred Perlstein wrote: >* Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> [001018 04:59] wrote: >> Do you mean that inheriting tables
shouldshare a single index with their >> ancestors, or that each descendant should get a separate index on the >> same
patternas its ancestors'?   >>  >> With the former, the inherited index could be used to enforce a primary >> key over
awhole inheritance hierarchy, and would presumable make it >> easier to implement RI against an inheritance hierarchy.
Isthis what >> you have in mind? > >Not really, it's more of a convience issue for me, a 'derived table' >should
inheritthe attributes of the 'base table' (including indecies), >having an index shared between two tables is an
interestingidea but >not what I had in mind.
 

Well then, what will happen if I do
SELECT * FROM table* WHERE inherited_unique_indexed_field = some_value;

would I expect to get back multiple rows?  Are all the separate indexes
candidates for use in the selection?

I think you are highlighting the fact that we still haven't satisfactorily
defined the semantics of inheritance in PostgreSQL; is it merely a
template system or is it something more meaningful?  What inheritance
specifications are we going to work towards?


-- 
Oliver Elphick                                Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight                              http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP: 1024R/32B8FAA1: 97 EA 1D 47 72 3F 28 47  6B 7E 39 CC 56 E4 C1 47
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839  932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
========================================   "Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give      thee the desires
ofthine heart."          Psalms 37:4