| From: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Happy column dropping |
| Date: | 2000-01-25 04:44:31 |
| Message-ID: | 3.0.1.32.20000124204431.007b3940@mail.pacifier.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 09:48 PM 1/24/00 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>Maybe that is true. Having phantom column all over the code is going to
>be a mess, and hardly worth it considering how many developers there are
>and how many _big_ items still have to be done.
Works for Oracle...I guess Postgres is just an obviously more robust,
faster, more reliable, and altogether more brilliant RDBMS than this
loser commercial DB? It's really hard to understand why Postgres has
had such a poor reputation over the years when faced with such facts,
isn't it?
>Messing up code for one feature is rarely worth it.
Dropping constraints on a table just because you drop a column is
just butt-ugly.
Sorry if you disagree.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-01-25 04:46:28 | Re: [HACKERS] Happy column dropping |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-01-25 04:35:31 | Re: [HACKERS] Happy column dropping |