Re: Happy column adding (was RE: [HACKERS] Happy column dropping)
| От | Bruce Momjian |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Happy column adding (was RE: [HACKERS] Happy column dropping) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 200001252238.RAA25731@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Happy column adding (was RE: [HACKERS] Happy column dropping) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Happy column adding (was RE: [HACKERS] Happy column dropping)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
> It occurs to me that in at least some of the places where attribute > numbers are currently used, we ought to use *neither* logical nor > physical column position, but rather a permanent unique ID --- the > attribute tuple's OID would work, if it's assigned soon enough to be > used for constraints given in CREATE TABLE. (Otherwise we could assign > "column serial numbers" that count from 1 for each relation, but are > never changed or recycled within the relation.) > > In particular, if parsetrees for stored rules and constraints worked > that way, renumbering attributes that follow the added/dropped column > would become a lot less painful. I am going to object to any use of invisible columns just to get a nice ALTER DROP COLUMN capability. It doesn't seeem with the added code complexity. Our code is complex enough. Why add more to it just for one feature. -- 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: