From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate |
Date: | 2002-04-08 03:33:30 |
Message-ID: | 4086.1018236810@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> You know there is a way to do this and not break client compatibility.
> Rename the current pg_attribute relation to pg_baseatt or something. Fix
> all references to it in the code. Create a system view called pg_attribute
> which is SELECT * (except attisdropped) FROM pg_baseattr WHERE NOT
> attisdropped.
Wasn't your original concern that the attnums wouldn't be consecutive?
How is this view going to hide that?
> Logical vs. physical column numbers would still be quite handy tho.
But confusing as all hell, at *all* levels of the code ... I've thought
about that quite a bit, and I can't see that we could expect to make it
work without a lot of hard-to-find bugs. Too many places where it's
not instantly obvious which set of numbers you should be using.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2002-04-08 03:52:02 | Re: PQescapeBytea is not multibyte aware |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-08 03:23:03 | Re: Suggestion for optimization |