From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BETWEEN Node & DROP COLUMN |
Date: | 2002-07-04 09:21:30 |
Message-ID: | 3D24139A.33A877F6@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > OK, I've been looking at Hiroshi's implementation. It's basically
> > semantically equivalent to mine from what I can see so far. The only
> > difference really is in how the dropped columns are marked.
>
> True enough, but that's not a trivial difference.
> The problem with
> Hiroshi's implementation is that there's no longer a close tie between
> pg_attribute.attnum and physical positions of datums in tuples.
?? Where does the above consideration come from ?
BTW there seems a misunderstanding about my posting.
I'm not objecting to add attisdropped pg_attribute column.
They are essentially the same and so I used macros
like COLUMN_IS_DROPPED in my implementation so that
I can easily change the implementation to use isdropped
pg_attribute column.
I'm only correcting the unfair valuation for my
trial work.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-07-04 09:27:18 | Re: BETWEEN Node & DROP COLUMN |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2002-07-04 09:18:02 | Re: BETWEEN Node & DROP COLUMN |