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: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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 |