| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: When the locially dropped column is also physically dropped |
| Date: | 2007-04-30 21:30:07 |
| Message-ID: | 9088.1177968607@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> writes:
> Ron's comment is well-suggested[1], but a bit of a red herring, as the
> column will *NEVER* be "physically dropped." [2]
Check.
> What will happen is that new tuples will not have the column, but old
> tuples will continue to have the (invisible) column for as long as
> they "live" in the database.
Actually, new tuples still have the column, it's just always NULL
(and hence takes no space except for a bit in the nulls-bitmap).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2007-04-30 21:38:18 | Re: pgsql and Mac OS X |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-30 21:28:08 | Re: NFS vs. PostgreSQL on Solaris |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marshall, Steve | 2007-04-30 21:55:04 | Allow use of stable functions with constraint exclusion |
| Previous Message | Chris Browne | 2007-04-30 20:03:35 | Re: Feature freeze progress report |