Re: DROP COLUMN

From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
Cc: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: DROP COLUMN
Date: 2002-07-18 02:10:18
Message-ID: GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOCEDFCDAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> > All backend functions would still use real attnum's. And I doubt that
> > backend will ever work though system views.
> > Adding them should touch _only_ CREATE TABLE, ADD COLUMN, DROP COLUMN
> > plus the system views and possibly output from SELECT(*), if we allow
> > logical reordering of columns by changing attlognum.
>
> Hmm. That last point is attractive enough to make it interesting to do.
>
> Christopher, you're the man doing the legwork ... what do you think?
> Offhand I'd think that expansion of "SELECT *" and association of
> column aliases to specific columns would be the two places that would
> need work to support attlognum; but we know they're both broken anyway
> by introduction of dropped columns.

Sure you don't want me to submit a working patch for DROP COLUMN first and
then do it after?

It wouldn't even cause any backward compatibility problems would it? Older
clients would just order the columns by attnum...

Chris

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-07-18 03:59:28 Re: utils C files
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2002-07-18 02:04:29 CREATE CONVERSION mostly works now