Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > If the client has to bear the some part, isn't the invisible
> > > column approach much simpler ?
> > >
> > > I've put a pretty much time into DROP COLUMN feature but
> > > I am really disappointed to see the comments in this thread.
> > > What DROP COLUMN has brought me seems only a waste of time.
> > >
> > > Possibly I must have introduced either implementation forcibly.
> >
> > I understand. I personally think maybe we have been a little to picky
> > about patches being accepted. Sometimes when something is not 100%
> > perfect, we do nothing rather than accept the patch, and replace or
> > improve it later. The DROP COLUMN approach you had clearly is one of
> > them.
>
> I don't complain about the rejection of my patch.
> If it has an essential flaw we had better reject it.
> What I'm complaining is why it is OK now whereas
> there's nothing new.
Sure, I understand.
My physical/logical idea may have the same problems as your DROP COLUMN
idea, and may be as rapidly rejected. I am just throwing it out for
discussion.
I am not sure I like 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
