From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Phantom Command ID |
Date: | 2006-09-26 10:31:08 |
Message-ID: | 4519016C.3040308@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> Another question is, what should cmin and cmax system columns return?
>
> If we're going to fool with these, I'd like to renew the suggestion I
> made awhile back that none of the system columns should have explicit
> entries in pg_attribute, but rather their lookup should be special-cased
> in the parser. And whatever we do with cmin/cmax, the infomask should
> become exposed as well.
I just looked back at that discussion in the archives
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-02/msg00615.php)
What was the original reason for the proposal? Space savings?
We could rename pg_attribute as pg_userattribute, and remove all the
system attributes from that. To stay backwards-compatible, we could have
a pg_attribute view on top of that contained the system attributes as well.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jon Lapham | 2006-09-26 11:06:21 | Restart after power outage: createdb |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2006-09-26 10:16:54 | Block B-Tree concept |