@@ -516,3 +516,131 @@ http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
516
516
517
517
************
518
518
519
+ From
[email protected] Sat Jun 3 23:31:02 2000
520
+ Received: from renoir.op.net (
[email protected] [207.29.195.4])
521
+ by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id WAA28683
522
+ for <
[email protected] >; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 22:31:01 -0400 (EDT)
523
+ Received: from news.tht.net (news.hub.org [216.126.91.242]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.14 $) with ESMTP id WAA20977 for <
[email protected] >; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 22:05:07 -0400 (EDT)
524
+ Received: from hub.org (
[email protected] [216.126.84.1])
525
+ by news.tht.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAD35811;
526
+ Sat, 3 Jun 2000 21:54:36 -0400 (EDT)
527
+
528
+ Received: from merganser.its.uu.se (merganser.its.uu.se [130.238.6.236])
529
+ by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA12118
530
+ for <
[email protected] >; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 21:41:27 -0400 (EDT)
531
+
532
+ Received: from regulus.student.UU.SE ([130.238.5.2]:61160 "EHLO
533
+ regulus.its.uu.se") by merganser.its.uu.se with ESMTP
534
+ id <S168006AbQFDBlC>; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 03:41:02 +0200
535
+ Received: from peter (helo=localhost)
536
+ by regulus.its.uu.se with local-esmtp (Exim 3.02 #2)
537
+ id 12yPV7-0002Tp-00; Sun, 04 Jun 2000 03:46:53 +0200
538
+ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 03:46:53 +0200 (CEST)
539
+ From: Peter Eisentraut <
[email protected] >
540
+
541
+
542
+ Subject: Re: [GENERAL] child table doesn't inherit PRIMARY KEY?
543
+ In-Reply-To: <20000603172256.A3435@styx>
544
+
545
+ MIME-Version: 1.0
546
+ Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
547
+ Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
548
+
549
+ Precedence: bulk
550
+
551
+ Status: ORr
552
+
553
+ Louis-David Mitterrand writes:
554
+
555
+ > When creating a child (through CREATE TABLE ... INHERIT (parent)) it
556
+ > seems the child gets all of the parent's contraints _except_ its PRIMARY
557
+ > KEY. Is this normal?
558
+
559
+ It's kind of a bug.
560
+
561
+
562
+ --
563
+ Peter Eisentraut Sernanders v�g 10:115
564
+
565
+ http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
566
+
567
+
568
+ From
[email protected] Fri Jan 19 12:37:34 2001
569
+ Received: from megazone23.bigpanda.com (rfx-64-6-210-138.users.reflexcom.com [64.6.210.138])
570
+ by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id MAA28247
571
+ for <
[email protected] >; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:37:33 -0500 (EST)
572
+ Received: from localhost (sszabo@localhost)
573
+ by megazone23.bigpanda.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0JHb2H05566;
574
+ Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:37:03 -0800 (PST)
575
+ Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:37:02 -0800 (PST)
576
+ From: Stephan Szabo <
[email protected] >
577
+ To: Bruce Momjian <
[email protected] >
578
+
579
+ Subject: Re: [GENERAL] child table doesn't inherit PRIMARY KEY?
580
+
581
+
582
+ MIME-Version: 1.0
583
+ Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
584
+ Status: OR
585
+
586
+
587
+ Probably, since I see it in near recent sources (and it affects
588
+ UNIQUE as well. As I remember it, the last discussion on this couldn't
589
+ determine what the correct behavior for unique/primary key constraints
590
+ was in the inheritance case (is it a single unique hierarchy through
591
+ all the tables [would be needed for fk to inheritance trees] or
592
+ separate unique constraints for each table [which would be similar
593
+ to how many people seem to currently use postgres inheritance as a
594
+ shortcut]).
595
+
596
+ On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
597
+
598
+ > Does this bug still exist?
599
+ >
600
+ > [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
601
+ > > Louis-David Mitterrand writes:
602
+ > >
603
+ > > > When creating a child (through CREATE TABLE ... INHERIT (parent)) it
604
+ > > > seems the child gets all of the parent's contraints _except_ its PRIMARY
605
+ > > > KEY. Is this normal?
606
+
607
+
608
+ From
[email protected] Wed Jan 24 14:26:12 2001
609
+ Received: from megazone23.bigpanda.com (rfx-64-6-210-138.users.reflexcom.com [64.6.210.138])
610
+ by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id OAA26091
611
+ for <
[email protected] >; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:26:10 -0500 (EST)
612
+ Received: from localhost (sszabo@localhost)
613
+ by megazone23.bigpanda.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0OJPZ858086;
614
+ Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:25:35 -0800 (PST)
615
+ Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:25:35 -0800 (PST)
616
+ From: Stephan Szabo <
[email protected] >
617
+ To: Bruce Momjian <
[email protected] >
618
+ cc: PostgreSQL-development <
[email protected] >
619
+ Subject: Re: [GENERAL] child table doesn't inherit PRIMARY KEY?
620
+
621
+
622
+ MIME-Version: 1.0
623
+ Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
624
+ Status: ORr
625
+
626
+ On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
627
+
628
+ >
629
+ > OK, what do people want to do with this item? Add to TODO list?
630
+ >
631
+ > Seems making a separat unique constraint would be easy to do and be of
632
+ > value to most users.
633
+
634
+ The problem is that doing that will pretty much guarantee that we won't
635
+ be doing foreign keys to inheritance trees without changing that behavior
636
+ and we've seen people asking about adding that too. I think that this
637
+ falls into the general category of "Make inheritance make sense" (Now
638
+ there's a todo item :) ) Seriously, I think the work on how inheritance
639
+ is going to work will decide this, maybe we end up with a real inheritance
640
+ tree system and something that works like the current stuff in which case
641
+ I'd say it's probably one unique for the former and one per for the
642
+ latter.
643
+
644
+
645
+
646
+
0 commit comments