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
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joe Conway||Date: 2002-09-27 04:11:28|
|Subject: Re: Cascaded Column Drop|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2002-09-27 03:58:20|
|Subject: Re: postmaster -d option (was Re: [GENERAL] Relation 0 does|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-09-27 04:03:39|
|Subject: Re: additional patch for contrib/tablefunc - added to |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-09-27 03:47:08|
|Subject: Re: Cascaded Column Drop |