Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

RE: [HACKERS] Re: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Re: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN
Date: 2000-02-28 07:16:43
Message-ID: 000f01bf81bb$c3b8d140$2801007e@tpf.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
> 
> > > I would also change attname to '*already dropped %d' for
> > > examle to avoid duplicate attname. 
> > 
> > Okay, just curious here, but ... what you are proposing *sounds* to me
> > like half-way to what started this thread. (*Please* correct me if I'm
> > wrong) ...
> > 
> > Essentially, in your proposal, when you drop a column, all subsequent
> > tuples inserted/updated would have ... that one column missing?  So,
> > instead of doing a massive sweep through the table and removing that
> > column, only do it when an insert/update happens? 
> > 
> > Basically, eliminate the requirement to re-write every tuples, 
> only those
> > that have activity?
> 
> And I think the problem was that there was too much code to modify to
> allow this.
>

Seems my trial would be useless.
I would give up the trial.

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jan WieckDate: 2000-02-28 07:22:06
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A further thought on rule string size
Previous:From: Lamar OwenDate: 2000-02-28 06:36:58
Subject: Syslog and pg_options (for RPMs)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group