| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN fast default | 
| Date: | 2018-03-28 23:49:59 | 
| Message-ID: | 30056.1522280999@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> +       /*
>> +        * Missing value for added columns. This is a one element array which lets
>> +        * us store a value of the attribute type here.
>> +        */
>> +       anyarray        attmissingval BKI_DEFAULT(_null_);
>> #endif
>> } FormData_pg_attribute;
>> 
>> Still think this is a bad location, and it'll reduce cache hit ratio for
>> catalog lookups.
> As I think I mentioned before, this was discussed previously and as I
> understood it this was the consensus location for it.
I don't have a problem with putting that in pg_attribute (and I certainly
agree with not putting it in pg_attrdef).  But "anyarray" seems like a
damn strange, and bulky, choice.  Why not just make it a bytea holding the
bits for the value, nothing more?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-03-28 23:55:39 | Re: Using base backup exclusion filters to reduce data transferred with pg_rewind | 
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2018-03-28 23:46:23 | Re: ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN fast default |