I sent a draft by mistake, sorry.
Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 09:11, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > do they really love to check attisdropped everywhere ?
> > Isn't it the opposite of the encapsulation ?
> > I don't understand why we would do nothing for clients.
>
> AFAIK, there is separate work being done on defining SQL99 compatible
> system views, that most client apps could and should use.
>
> But those (few) apps that still need intimate knowledge about postrges'
> internals will always have to query the original system _tables_.
>
> Also, as we have nothing like Oracles ROWNR, I think it will be quite
> hard to have colnums without gaps in the system views,
Agreed. However do we have to give up all views which omit
dropped columns ? Logical numbers aren't always needed.
I think the system view created by 'CREATE VIEW xxxx as
select * from pg_attribute where not attisdropped' has
its reason for existing.
regards,
Hiroshi Inouehttp://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/
