| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN |
| Date: | 2000-10-09 22:09:17 |
| Message-ID: | 7429.971129357@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> hrmm .. mvcc uses a timestamp, no? is there no way of using that
> timestamp to determine which columns have/haven't been cleaned up
> following a crash? maybe some way of marking a table as being in a 'drop
> column' mode, so that when it gets brought back up again, it is scan'd for
> any tuples older then that date?
WAL would provide the framework to do something like that, but I still
say it'd be a bad idea. What you're describing is
irrevocable-once-it-starts DROP COLUMN; there is no way to roll it back.
We're trying to get rid of statements that act that way, not add more.
I am not convinced that a 2x penalty for DROP COLUMN is such a huge
problem that we should give up all the normal safety features of SQL
in order to avoid it. Seems to me that DROP COLUMN is only a big issue
during DB development, when you're usually working with relatively small
amounts of test data anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-09 22:33:33 | Re: Timed Triggers? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-09 21:43:50 | Re: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN |