From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate |
Date: | 2002-04-10 14:19:26 |
Message-ID: | 3845.1018448366@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> That means that
>> a lot of low-level places *do* need to know about the dropped-column
>> convention, else they can't make any sense of tuple layouts.
> Why ? As you already mentioned, there were not that many places
> to be changed.
There are not many places to change if the implementation uses
attisdropped, because we *only* have to hide the existence of the column
at the parser level. The guts of the system don't know anything funny
is going on; a dropped column looks the same as an undropped one
throughout the executor. But with negative attnums, even such basic
routines as heap_formtuple have to know about it, no?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Clift | 2002-04-10 14:32:40 | [Fwd: AW: More UB-Tree patent information] |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-10 14:13:51 | Re: timeout implementation issues |