> -----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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jan Wieck||Date: 2000-02-28 07:22:06|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A further thought on rule string size|
|Previous:||From: Lamar Owen||Date: 2000-02-28 06:36:58|
|Subject: Syslog and pg_options (for RPMs)|