| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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 |