| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DROP COLUMN |
| Date: | 2002-07-17 08:24:53 |
| Message-ID: | 3D3529D5.9596C8DA@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> > Also, as we have nothing like Oracles ROWNR, I think it will be quite
> > hard to have colnums without gaps in the system views, so we could
> > perhaps have a stopgap solution of adding logical column numbers (
> > (pg_attribute.attlognum) that will be changed every time a col is
> > added/dropped just for that purpose.
>
> [ thinks... ] I don't believe this would make life any easier, really.
> Inside the backend it's not much help, because we still have to look
> at every single attnum reference to see if it should be logical or
> physical attnum. On the client side it seems promising at first sight
> ... but the client will still break if it tries to correlate the
> logical colnum it sees with physical colnums in pg_attrdef and other
> system catalogs.
Why do we have to give up all even though we can't handle
physical/logical attnums in the same way ?
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Manfred Koizar | 2002-07-17 08:35:25 | Re: OID suppression issues |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2002-07-17 07:56:55 | Re: pg_views.definition |