Re: FK's to refer to rows in inheritance child
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>, Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>, YebHavinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, "w.p.dijkstra@mgrid.net" <w.p.dijkstra@mgrid.net>
Date: 2010-12-05T17:10:57Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > On 12/04/2010 07:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to official topic branches at some point in the future, but I think it's premature to speculate about whether it'd be useful here. > I'd need a lot of convincing if it imposed an extra burden on people > like Tom. The only way I could see working is if some committer took > ownership of the topic branch and guaranteed to keep it pretty much in > sync with the master branch. Well, allegedly this is one of the reasons we moved to git. Anybody can do that in their own repository, just as easily as a core committer could. AFAICS it's not necessary for the core repo to contain the branch, up until the point where it's ready to merge into master. >> What is needed right now is design work, not code. > Indeed. In this case I don't think we even have agreement on the > features let alone how they might work. Yeah. But it's fair to look ahead to how development might proceed. regards, tom lane