X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC117D1B432 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 23:40:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 67344-02 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:39:32 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63123D1B488 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:39:29 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBNNdS19011167; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:39:28 -0500 (EST) To: Michael Glaesemann Cc: "'pgsql-sql@postgresql.org'" Subject: Re: Distributed keys In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Michael Glaesemann message dated "Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:42:24 -0600" Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:39:27 -0500 Message-ID: <11166.1072222767@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200312/167 X-Sequence-Number: 16333 Michael Glaesemann 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