Re: SQL3 UNDER
Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
From: Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
To: Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au>
Cc: "Robert B. Easter" <reaster@comptechnews.com>, Postgres Hackers List <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Date: 2000-05-23T06:40:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Chris Bitmead wrote: > > "Robert B. Easter" wrote: > > This contrasts with UNDER, where a subtable does maintain a link to its > > supertable in order to cascade inserts etc to the supertable for the subrow it > > inherited. > > What you have just described for the behaviour of UNDER (as opposed to > implementation) is just how INHERITS works now. i.e. you can't destroy > the parent unless there are no children. We could supply DROP TABLE parent CASCADE; syntax to destroy bot parent and all inherited tables. --------------------- Hannu