Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> > OK, I've been looking at Hiroshi's implementation. It's basically
> > semantically equivalent to mine from what I can see so far. The only
> > difference really is in how the dropped columns are marked.
>
> True enough, but that's not a trivial difference.
> The problem with
> Hiroshi's implementation is that there's no longer a close tie between
> pg_attribute.attnum and physical positions of datums in tuples.
?? Where does the above consideration come from ?
BTW there seems a misunderstanding about my posting.
I'm not objecting to add attisdropped pg_attribute column.
They are essentially the same and so I used macros
like COLUMN_IS_DROPPED in my implementation so that
I can easily change the implementation to use isdropped
pg_attribute column.
I'm only correcting the unfair valuation for my
trial work.
regards,
Hiroshi Inouehttp://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/
