| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DROP COLUMN |
| Date: | 2002-07-16 23:37:13 |
| Message-ID: | 3D34AE29.18623065@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > Makes sense. Of course, we could make a syscache that didn't return
> > > system columns either.
> > >
> > > Actually, the original argument for negative attno's for dropped columns
> > > was exactly for this case, that the system column check would catch
> > > dropped columns too,
> >
> > > but it causes other problems that are harder to fix
> > > so we _dropped_ the idea.
> >
> > What does this mean ?
>
> Client programmers prefered the dropped flag rather than negative
> attno's so we went with that.
What I asked you is what *harder to fix* means.
> > BTW would we do nothing for clients after all ?
>
> Clients will now need to check that dropped flag.
Clients would have to check the flag everywhere
pg_attribute appears.
Why should clients do such a thing ?
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-07-17 01:31:29 | Re: pg_views.definition |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-07-16 22:53:29 | Do we still need these NOTICEs? |