Re: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darn columns

From: Ed Loehr <eloehr(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darn columns
Date: 2000-01-24 18:13:56
Message-ID: 388C9664.1D975D2D@austin.rr.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> Let's see: DROP COLUMN would have to mark the column invisible, remove
> any associated constraints (particularly NOT NULL) and indexes, and
> it'd be done. The parser would then have to ignore the column when
> doing column name lookups or expansion of '*', and it would have to
> insert a NULL value for the column when transforming INSERT or UPDATE.
> And that'd be just about it. I like it.

How would you handle multi-column indices that included the column
being dropped? E.g.,

create unique index foobar on mytable(foo,bar);

where the 'bar' column is then dropped...

Dropping all of that index would seem to be problematic.

Cheers,
Ed Loehr

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-01-24 18:17:57 Re: AW: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-01-24 18:13:45 Re: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates