Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate
Date: 2002-04-08 03:33:30
Message-ID: 4086.1018236810@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> You know there is a way to do this and not break client compatibility.
> Rename the current pg_attribute relation to pg_baseatt or something. Fix
> all references to it in the code. Create a system view called pg_attribute
> which is SELECT * (except attisdropped) FROM pg_baseattr WHERE NOT
> attisdropped.

Wasn't your original concern that the attnums wouldn't be consecutive?
How is this view going to hide that?

> Logical vs. physical column numbers would still be quite handy tho.

But confusing as all hell, at *all* levels of the code ... I've thought
about that quite a bit, and I can't see that we could expect to make it
work without a lot of hard-to-find bugs. Too many places where it's
not instantly obvious which set of numbers you should be using.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2002-04-08 03:52:02 Re: PQescapeBytea is not multibyte aware
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-08 03:23:03 Re: Suggestion for optimization