| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Demo patch for DROP COLUMN |
| Date: | 2002-07-24 01:45:06 |
| Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOOEEOCDAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> > My point was that there could still be a conflict against a user column
> > that the user tries to create *later*. So it's illusory to think that
> > making the name of a dropped column less predictable will improve
> > matters.
>
> The simple (to describe, perhaps not to implement ;) way to resolve it
> would be for the ADD COLUMN (or CREATE TABLE INHERITS) rename the
> offending deleted column once more.
Hah! What a wonderful idea! Now why didn't I think of that!
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-24 01:57:09 | Re: partial index on system indexes? |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-07-23 23:28:45 | Re: Access Two Databases |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-24 01:54:46 | Re: psql tab-complete: schema support, quotes, etc. |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-23 23:59:15 | Re: lock listing |