Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:14:46 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
To: Erik Jones <erik@myemma.com>
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: new idea
Message-ID: <20070409141446.GD16486@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
References: <1266433218.20070409094224@narod.ru>
	<20070409122139.GA16486@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
	<2812EE7F-E9B9-4AF4-AA69-ECA6EB3608F5@myemma.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2812EE7F-E9B9-4AF4-AA69-ECA6EB3608F5@myemma.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 09:11:57AM -0500, Erik Jones wrote:
> 
> I don't really even see the need for inheritance here.  This is what  
> most ORMs do at the application level already.

Wel, sure, but the poster seemed to think that having a way to
represent this in the database was a good thing.  (I'm not actually
convinced even of that.  The whole point of SQL was to move away from
the hierarchical model, and so grafting a lot of hierarchy back onto
it suggests to me that the OP has picked the wrong technology for the
problem at the outset.)

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
In the future this spectacle of the middle classes shocking the avant-
garde will probably become the textbook definition of Postmodernism. 
                --Brad Holland