From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate |
Date: | 2002-04-11 04:45:22 |
Message-ID: | 3CB514E2.DA997C43@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I kind of agree with Hiroshi here. All I want to be able to do is drop
> columns from my tables, and reclaim the space. I've got all sorts of
> production tables with columns just sitting there doing nothing, awaiting
> the time that I can happily drop them.
> It seems to me that whatever we do
> will require some kind of client breakage.
Physical/logical attnum approach was mainly to not break
clients. I implemented it on trial but the implementation
was hard to maintain unfortunately. It's pretty difficult
to decide whether the number is physical or logical in
many cases.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-11 04:50:15 | Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate |
Previous Message | Jayaraj Oorath | 2002-04-11 04:36:07 | UNSUSCRIBE pgsql_hackers |