Re: [HACKERS] TODO list check
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] TODO list check |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200001291723.MAA28392@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] TODO list check (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
TODO list updated with your suggestions. [Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...] > On 2000-01-27, Tom Lane mentioned: > > > > * Disallow inherited columns with the same name as new columns > > > > > Either this was just not marked off, or there is some misconception about > > > how things should work. > > > > Well, I'm not sure. Clearly, multiple inheritance is a problem if you > > can't inherit similar columns from two parents. But is it a good idea > > to allow a child to declare (what it thinks is) a new column, and have > > that silently get merged with an inherited column? Seems like kicking > > out an error would be a better idea. > > Okay, now it gives an error if you try to create a new column with the > same name as an inherited column, but allows merging of columns between > inherited tables. Check. > > > > > * SELECT ... UNION ... ORDER BY fails when sort expr not in result list > > > > > Looks good to me: > > > > No, it's still broken; your test case doesn't actually exercise any > > sorting, does it? The bug is that the ORDER BY only gets applied to the > > first SELECT; the rest are just appended on. This bug is awaiting > > querytree redesign; it's possible that it could be fixed now, but the > > UNION code is so bogus that no one really wants to touch it now... > > > > > * SELECT ... UNION ... GROUP BY fails if column types disagree > > > > > Shouldn't it? > > > > Not if they can be promoted to a common supertype. The entry is pretty > > misleading because it is so terse though. > > How about adding this into TODO.detail, so two months from now everyone > (except those that keep outside lists) remembers it. (Or just rephrase > this item, if you can.) > > > > > * Do not allow bpchar column creation without length > > > > > Looks good to me (and is standard compliant). > > > > I don't see a good reason for this item either. > > This item may be the same as the one below. The other day while working on > psql and mapping internal to sql types for \d output I noticed that system > tables have char columns with -1 typmod. I suppose that this would be your > char1 type? > > > > * Allow user to define char1 column > > > Come to think of it, it was mostly me complaining about this, so maybe > > I should just go do it; no time for it like 7.0, no? Will anyone object > > if I do this? > > At least the above behaviour is very subtle indeed. While I'm not so > excited about having all kinds of "more efficient" types around for > internal use (char1, abstime, some of the oid arrays), do what you feel is > best. The clean solution would seem to be item > > * Allow char() not to use variable-sized header to reduce disk size > > where you would use the atttypmod as the length instead of the header. But > a general solution like this would probably require too many structural > changes. > > > -- > Peter Eisentraut Sernanders v_g 10:115 > peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala > http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden > > > > ************ > -- 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:
Следующее
От: Bruce MomjianДата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Postgres LOGO(was: Beta is February 15th)