Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hiroshi Inoue
Subject Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate
Date
Msg-id 3CB514E2.DA997C43@tpf.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate  ("Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>)
Responses Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Christopher Kings-Lynne 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.
> 
> I kind of agree with Hiroshi here.  All I want to be able to do is drop
> columns from my tables, and reclaim the space.  I've got all sorts of
> production tables with columns just sitting there doing nothing, awaiting
> the time that I can happily drop them.

> It seems to me that whatever we do
> will require some kind of client breakage.

Physical/logical attnum approach was mainly to not break
clients. I implemented it on trial but the implementation
was hard to maintain unfortunately. It's pretty difficult
to decide whether the number is physical or logical in
many cases.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jayaraj Oorath
Date:
Subject: UNSUSCRIBE pgsql_hackers
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate