Re: inheritance, and plans
От | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz |
---|---|
Тема | Re: inheritance, and plans |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2f4958ff0902070259x2954ed78ob5ac746b14ae6c21@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: inheritance, and plans (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: inheritance, and plans
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > The UNION arms have to all be the same data type in order to have > restrictions pushed down through the UNION. You did not show us > the table declarations for your first example, but I bet that updateid > isn't the same type in both. (And yes, a domain is different from its > underlying type for this purpose.) I think you're right. The domain's in both cases (updateid and uri) are bigints default nextval('something') not null; and the r.history table's ones are just bigints not null. Same underlying type, but not a domain. I'll try to alter it to domain type, and see. thanks. -- GJ
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: