From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Cascaded Column Drop |
Date: | 2002-09-27 04:00:47 |
Message-ID: | 200209270400.g8R40l800977@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
> > When a cascaded column drop is removing the last column, drop the table
> > instead. Regression tests via domains.
>
> Is that a good idea, or should we refuse the drop entirely? A table
> drop zaps a lot more stuff than a column drop.
I think we should refuse the drop. It is just too strange. You can
suggest if they want the column dropped, just drop the table.
> What I was actually wondering about after reading Tim's report was
> whether we could support zero-column tables, which would eliminate the
> need for the special case altogether. I have not looked to see how
> extensive are the places that assume tuples have > 0 columns ...
Zero-width tables do sound interesting. Is it somehow non-relational?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-09-27 04:11:28 | Re: Cascaded Column Drop |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-27 03:58:20 | Re: postmaster -d option (was Re: [GENERAL] Relation 0 does |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-27 04:03:39 | Re: additional patch for contrib/tablefunc - added to |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-27 03:47:08 | Re: Cascaded Column Drop |