From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign |
Date: | 2003-03-11 02:27:06 |
Message-ID: | 200303110227.h2B2R6n14056@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> > What about the addition of pg_attribute.attrelid &
> > pg_attribute.attname/attnum in RowDesription messages to identify the
> > underlying attribute (where appropriate)?
>
> Well, we can talk about it, but I still think that any frontend that
> relies on such information is broken by design. (And if that means the
> JDBC spec is broken, then the JDBC spec is broken.)
>
> Just to start with, if I do "SELECT * FROM view", am I going to see the
> info associated with the view column, or with the hypothetical
> underlying table column? (Actually, didn't I already make a list of a
> bunch of ways in which this concept is underspecified? AFAIR, you
> didn't suggest answers to any of those questions ... but we need answers
> to all of them if we are going to implement the feature.)
I was willing to add a hack to enable default column labels to be
"table.column" --- that seemed like the least obtrusive.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-11 02:37:45 | Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-03-11 01:25:34 | Re: SQL99 ARRAY support proposal |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-11 02:37:45 | Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-11 00:48:41 | Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign |