From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | AW: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN |
Date: | 2000-10-12 14:23:35 |
Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA68796336809F@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> WAL would provide the framework to do something like that, but I still
> say it'd be a bad idea. What you're describing is
> irrevocable-once-it-starts DROP COLUMN; there is no way to
> roll it back.
> We're trying to get rid of statements that act that way, not add more.
Yes.
> I am not convinced that a 2x penalty for DROP COLUMN is such a huge
> problem that we should give up all the normal safety features of SQL
> in order to avoid it. Seems to me that DROP COLUMN is only a
> big issue during DB development, when you're usually working with
> relatively small amounts of test data anyway.
Here I don't agree, the statement can also be used for an application version
upgrade. Thus seen in SAP/R3 with tables > 30 Gb.
My conclusion would be that we need both:
1. a fast system table only solution with physical/logical column id
2. a tool that does the cleanup (e.g. vacuum)
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-12 14:36:52 | Re: AW: AW: Reimplementing permission checks for rules |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-10-12 14:23:06 | AW: Proposal: TRUNCATE TABLE table RESTRICT |