From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
Cc: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: AW: AW: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN |
Date: | 2000-10-17 10:18:56 |
Message-ID: | 39EC2790.E2193CF6@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
> > This style of "DROP COLUMN" would change the attribute
> > numbers whose positons are after the dropped column.
> > Unfortunately we have no mechanism to invalidate/remove
> > objects(or prepared plans) which uses such attribute numbers.
> > And I've seen no proposal/discussion to solve this problem
> > for DROP COLUMN feature. We wound't be able to prevent
> > PostgreSQL from doing the wrong thing silently.
>
> That issue got me confused now (There was a previous mail where
> you suggested using logical colid most of the time). Why not use the
> physical colid in prepared objects/plans. Since those can't currently change
> it seems such plans would not be invalidated.
>
Because I couldn't follow this thread well,I don't understand
what people expect now.
I've maintained my trial implementation for 2 months but
I couldn't do it any longer.
If people prefer 2x DROP COLUMN,I would give up my trial.
I know some people(Hannu, you .. ??) prefer logical and physical
attribute numbers but Tom seems to hate an ugly implementa
-tation. Unfortunately the implementation is pretty ugly and
so I may have to give up my trial also.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris | 2000-10-17 10:21:44 | Re: INHERITS doesn't offer enough functionality |
Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2000-10-17 09:48:05 | Ответ: [HACKERS] ????: [HACKERS] Otvet: WAL and indexes (Re: [HACKERS] WAL status & todo) |