From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Phantom Command ID |
Date: | 2006-09-26 11:19:44 |
Message-ID: | 22980.1159269584@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we're going to fool with these, I'd like to renew the suggestion I
>> made awhile back that none of the system columns should have explicit
>> entries in pg_attribute, but rather their lookup should be special-cased
>> in the parser.
> What was the original reason for the proposal? Space savings?
Partly that, and partly that it'd make it much easier to alter the set
of system attributes.
> We could rename pg_attribute as pg_userattribute, and remove all the
> system attributes from that. To stay backwards-compatible, we could have
> a pg_attribute view on top of that contained the system attributes as well.
I don't really think this is necessary. How many client programs have
you seen that don't explicitly exclude attnum<0 anyway? The places that
will need work are inside the backend, and a view won't help them.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2006-09-26 11:26:30 | Re: Block B-Tree concept |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-26 11:14:46 | Re: Block B-Tree concept |