| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate |
| Date: | 2002-04-15 03:48:10 |
| Message-ID: | 3CBA4D7A.9E61DECA@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>
> Also, it seems to me that at some point we are forced to break client
> compatibility.
It's not a users' consensus at all. I'm suspicious if
DROP COLUMN is such a significant feature to break
client compatibility at our ease.
> Either we add attisdropped field to pg_attribute, or we use
> Hiroshi's (-1 * attnum - offset) idea. Both Tom and Hiroshi have good
> reasons for each of these - would it be possible for you guys to post with
> your reasons for and against both the techniques.
I don't object to adding attisdropped field. What
I meant to say is that the differene is very small.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-15 03:49:34 | Re: ANSI Compliant Inserts |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-15 03:40:59 | Re: ANSI Compliant Inserts |