Tom Lane wrote:
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > Seems some people expect the implementation in 7.1.
> > (recent [GENERAL} drop column?)
> > I could commit my local branch if people don't mind
> > backward incompatibility.
>
> I've lost track --- is this different from the _DROP_COLUMN_HACK__
> code that's already in CVS? I really really didn't like that
> implementation :-(, but I forget what other methods were being
> discussed.
>
My current local trial implementation follows your idea(logical/
physical attribute numbers).
> > P.S. I've noticed that get_rte_attribute_name() seems to
> > break my implementation. I'm not sure if I could solve it.
>
> That would be a problem --- rule dumping depends on that code to
> produce correct aliases, so making it work is not optional.
>
Your change has no problem if logical==physical attribute
numbers.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
