Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate

From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate
Date: 2002-04-11 04:01:37
Message-ID: 3CB50AA1.5EAB691D@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > > Why ? As you already mentioned, there were not that many places
> > > > to be changed.
> > > >
> > > > Well what's changed since then ?
> > >
> > > Here is an old email from me that outlines the idea of having a
> > > physical/logical attribute numbering system, and the advantages.
> >
> > I already tried physical/logical attribute implementation
> > pretty long ago. Where are new ideas to solve the problems
> > that the approach has ?
>
> Good question. I am suggesting more than just the drop column fix. It
> could be used for smaller data files to reduce padding, fix for
> inheritance problems with ADD COLUMN, and performance of moving
> varlena's to the end of the row.
>
> Also, my idea was to have the physical/logical mapping happen closer to
> the client, so the backend mostly only deals with physical.

If the client has to bear the some part, isn't the invisible
column approach much simpler ?

I've put a pretty much time into DROP COLUMN feature but
I am really disappointed to see the comments in this thread.
What DROP COLUMN has brought me seems only a waste of time.

Possibly I must have introduced either implementation forcibly.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2002-04-11 04:15:02 Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate
Previous Message Bear Giles 2002-04-11 03:52:06 Re: help with bison