| From: | Chris Bitmead <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darn columns |
| Date: | 2000-01-24 23:37:00 |
| Message-ID: | 388CE21C.26602A5E@bitmead.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Double-yikes. There goes that idea, or does it? Attributes are
> numbered. How does a missing attribute get handled for new rows?
> My guess is that we have to keep this thing around forever. Can you
> imagine having all those user apps tha query pg_attribute supress that
> column. Sound like too much work to me.
I don't know the intimate details of the postgres implementation, but I
would have thought every row would need a version number and you would
need to somehow store how the table looked at each version.
Because you could
CREATE TABLE
INSERT
ALTER DROP
INSERT/DELETE
ALTER DROP/ADD
INSERT/DELETE
and you would end up with rows with 5 or 6 different formats.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Patrick Welche | 2000-01-24 23:38:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: pg_dump possible fix, need testers. |
| Previous Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-01-24 23:33:07 | Re: [HACKERS] Inheritance, referential integrity and other constraints |