Re: [GENERAL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [GENERAL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
Date | |
Msg-id | 200002030257.VAA00457@candle.pha.pa.us Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [GENERAL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL (Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au>) |
Responses |
Re: [SQL] Re: [GENERAL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL
|
List | pgsql-general |
> Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > So the field is created on the fly to show what table it came from. > > Seems like a good idea, though implementing another usually-invisible > > column will be tough. > > What problems do you forsee? Well, it is usually pretty strange to carry around a column that doesn't exist through all the code and finally contruct it at the end. I would suspect something in the rewrite system could do that pretty easily, though. That is the direction I would go with that. > > > However, because it is not really a column like > > the oid is a column, it should be ok. Of course, internally it is > > relid. > > > > > 2) Changing the sense of the default for getting inherited tuples. > > > Currently you only get inherited tuples if you specify "tablename*". > > > > Sounds fine to me. Just realize you are taking on a long-overdue but > > big job here. > > I already have a patch for this one. The change is a few pretty simple > changes > to gram.y. OK, you will have to canvas the general list to make sure this does not break things for people, though our inheritance system needs an overhaul badly. > > > > 3) The ability to return different types of rows from a SELECT. This > > > is to allow implementation of ODBMS functionality where a query could > > > be required to instantiate objects of differing types with differing > > > attributes. > > > > This bothers me. We return relational data, showing the same number of > > columns and types for every query. I don't think we want to change > > that, even for OO. > > What aspects bother you? This is the fundamental important thing about > object databases. I fear it is totally against the way our API works. How does someone see how many columns in the returned row? > > How are you going to return that info the the client side? > > Well the backend <-> frontend protocol that used to be able to return > tuples of different types would be put back in. > > Also the berkerly postgres docs had other scenarios where different > tuples > could be returned. One is you could have a field of type postquel called > say > EMP.hobbies which had a value of "retrieve HOBBIES.all where...", and > then "retrieve > EMP.hobbies would return tuples of different types of hobbies. Yikes. Strange. Can we just return nulls for the empty fields? How many new API calls are required? -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
pgsql-general by date: