| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FDW system columns |
| Date: | 2012-02-27 03:35:23 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobKfc70rJDu-89Kt6ft+BaKnNe80KjHQeHEkUFuW+9yGg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>>> If there seems to be a consensus on removing system column from foreign
>>> tables, I'd like to work on this issue. Attached is a halfway patch,
>>> and ISTM there is no problem so far.
>>
>>
>> I can say that at least PgAdmin doesn't use these columns.
>
> So we still have all of these columns for foreign tables. I've tested
> Hanada-san's patch and it removes all of the system columns. Could we
> consider applying it, or has a use-case for them since been
> discovered?
Not to my knowledge, but Hanada-san described his patch as a "halfway
patch", implying that it wasn't done.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-02-27 03:37:14 | Re: Website stylesheet for local docs |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-02-27 03:20:33 | Re: Memory usage during sorting |