Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > > As I remember, Hiroshi's drop column changed the attribute number to a
> > > > special negative value, which required lots of changes to track.
> > >
> > > ??? What do you mean by *lots of* ?
> >
> > Yes, please remind me. Was your solution renumbering the attno values?
>
> Yes though I don't intend to object to Christopher's proposal.
>
> > I think there are fewer cases to fix if we keep the existing attribute
> > numbering and just mark the column as deleted. Is this accurate?
>
> No. I don't understand why you think so.
With the isdropped column, you really only need to deal with '*'
expansion in a few places, and prevent the column from being accessed.
With renumbering, the backend loops that go through the attnos have to
be dealt with.
Is this correct? I certainly prefer attno renumbering to isdropped
because it allows us to get DROP COLUMN without any client changes, or
at least with fewer because the dropped column has a negative attno. Is
this accurate?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us 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