Re: A different approach to extension NO USER DATA feature

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: A different approach to extension NO USER DATA feature
Date: 2011-02-07 17:44:51
Message-ID: 9EA74725-9254-44E0-976D-D4148F7BB4D7@kineticode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Feb 7, 2011, at 8:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

> Yeah, this is another approach that one could take instead of having
> per-row flags. I'm not sure that it's better, much less so much better
> that we should force extensions to do it that way and not the other.
> But it's definitely another argument against making a hard-wired
> assumption that there will be a flag column.

Would the flag column usually be invisible, like the system oid column?

Best,

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-02-07 17:51:47 Re: More extension issues: ownership and search_path
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-02-07 17:43:15 Re: Sync Rep for 2011CF1