Re: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darn columns
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darn columns |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200001241648.LAA16860@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Well, then you keep your darn columns (Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darn columns
(Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Let me thank all of those that spoke up in my support and let me tell of > those that were unhappy that I _will_ be here tomorrow as well. To > summarize the points and add a few of my own: > > 1) This is a TODO item. > > 2) I have reviewed several mutterings about how to implement this in the > archives and followed the consensus that you need to copy the table over > somehow. It's not like I made this up. Yes, as Peter pointed out, he did exactly what I suggested in my e-mail when he brought up the issue. I don't even remember sending the e-mail, so it must have been some time ago, 25 Nov 1999. > > 2a) Does anyone have a better idea? (Btw., I'm not too excited about > by-passing the storage manager and writing around in the table file on > disk. If vacuum does that, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.) I totally agree that bypassing the storage manager is the wrong way to go with this. All the command/*.c stuff is make to be clean, not fast. It is better to put something together that works rather than optimize things like add user or create database. Now, I will admit the ALTER DROP is going take much longer than most command/*.c, so it may be worth it some day to try and do this, but I don't see this as a priority at this point. We have many other items to work on that are more important. > 6) Users have been begging for this but nobody else has moved a finger. Totally true. > > 7) If you are concerned about "perfect" implementation, then I invite you > to take a look at the create/drop user and create/drop database code from > 6.5 and thank whomever you do thank that your database isn't fried yet. Yes, that stuff is a mess, and Peter has cleaned it up quite a bit. And I have already asked him about CLUSTER, which has serious problems. > 8) Now that I know how to keep the oids around, they will be kept around. > (Thanks to those that interpreted my message as a starting point for a > discussion and not me laying down the law.) Yes, it seems passing in the oid as part of heap_insert will do a good job for us in a few other areas like when we want to modify the oid of a tuple. Withouth that, we if you delete a tuple, you can't add it back in with the same oid. That is pretty bad. > > 9) What really gets me though is what your problem is. This is a nearly > SQL-compliant implementation of a very important feature. It doesn't > affect the rest of the code. It doesn't break the regression tests. It > checks for permissions, validity of parameters, etc. and even if it goes > wrong, it doesn't fry your database or any part of it. Yes, I am still totally confused. Let's hope it is just an aberation. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: