| 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 11:35:54 |
| Message-ID: | 4519109A.60804@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> I don't really think this is necessary. How many client programs have
> you seen that don't explicitly exclude attnum<0 anyway? The places that
> will need work are inside the backend, and a view won't help them.
>
None, there probably isn't any client programs like that. It would be
nice for programs to be able to discover what system attributes there
is, though.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2006-09-26 11:44:39 | Re: Bitmap index status |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2006-09-26 11:26:30 | Re: Block B-Tree concept |