Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Well, it seems isdropped is going to have to be checked by _any_ client,
> > while holes in the number will have to be checked by _some_ clients. Is
> > that accurate?
>
> What's your point? No client that examines pg_attribute can be trusted
> until it's been examined pretty closely (as in, more closely than
> Christopher looked at pg_dump). I'd prefer to see us keep the backend
> simple and trustworthy, rather than pursue a largely-illusory idea that
> we might be saving some trouble on the client side. The clients are
> less likely to cause unrecoverable data corruption if something is
> missed.
>
> If we were willing to remap attnums so that clients would require *no*
> changes, it would be worth doing --- but I believe we've already
> rejected that approach as unworkable. I don't think "maybe you don't
> need to change, but you'd better study your code very carefully anyway"
> is a big selling point.
It sure is. If most people don't need to modify their code, that is a
win. Your logic is that we should make everyone modify their code and
somehow that will be more reliable? No wonder people think we are more
worried about clean code than making things easier for our users.
I will vote for the option that has the less pain for our users _and_ in
the backend, but if it is close, I will prefer to make things easier on
clients/users.
-- 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