Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > > Makes sense. Of course, we could make a syscache that didn't return
> > > > system columns either.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, the original argument for negative attno's for dropped columns
> > > > was exactly for this case, that the system column check would catch
> > > > dropped columns too,
> > >
> > > > but it causes other problems that are harder to fix
> > > > so we _dropped_ the idea.
> > >
> > > What does this mean ?
> >
> > Client programmers prefered the dropped flag rather than negative
> > attno's so we went with that.
>
> What I asked you is what *harder to fix* means.
Uh, some said that having attno's like 1,2,3,5,7,8,9 with gaps would
cause coding problems in client applications, and that was easier to
have the numbers as 1-9 and check a flag if the column is dropped. Why
that is easier than having gaps, I don't understand. I voted for the
gaps (with negative attno's) but client coders liked the flag, so we
went with that.
> > > BTW would we do nothing for clients after all ?
> >
> > Clients will now need to check that dropped flag.
>
> Clients would have to check the flag everywhere
> pg_attribute appears.
> Why should clients do such a thing ?
Well, good question. They could easily skip the dropped columns if we
used negative attno's because they usually already skip system columns.
However, they prefered a specific dropped column flag and positive
attno's. I don't know why. They would have to explain.
From my perspective, when client coders like Dave Page and others say
they would prefer the flag to the negative attno's, I don't have to
understand. I just take their word for it.
-- 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