From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Glaesemann <grzm@myrealbox.com>
Cc: 'pgsql-sql@postgresql.org' <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Distributed keys
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:39:27 -0500
Message-ID: <11166.1072222767@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E537DC48-3590-11D8-97F0-000A95C88220@myrealbox.com>
References: <E537DC48-3590-11D8-97F0-000A95C88220@myrealbox.com>
Michael Glaesemann <grzm@myrealbox.com> writes:
> I'm interested in hearing what others have to say, especially along the
> lines of implementation. I haven't seen much discussion of distributed
> keys on the lists (other than Josh Berkus), so perhaps there isn't much
> interest. Would there be any foreseeable opposition if I (and/or
> others) worked on this?
This seems to have considerable overlap with the problem of indexing
inheritance hierarchies (so that constraints on tables with children
would work as people expect). It may be that it's sufficient to solve
it for inheritance cases, and not try to support the generic case of
constraints applied across arbitrary sets of tables. ISTM that the
latter could introduce a bunch of extra definitional and practical
issues beyond what you'd have to solve to do the former.
You're discussing it on the wrong list though --- try -hackers.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, grzm@myrealbox.com
Subject: Re: Distributed keys
In-Reply-To: <11166.1072222767@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox