Re: Phantom Command ID - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: Phantom Command ID
Date
Msg-id 4519016C.3040308@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Phantom Command ID  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Phantom Command ID  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> Another question is, what should cmin and cmax system columns return?
>
> If we're going to fool with these, I'd like to renew the suggestion I
> made awhile back that none of the system columns should have explicit
> entries in pg_attribute, but rather their lookup should be special-cased
> in the parser. And whatever we do with cmin/cmax, the infomask should
> become exposed as well.

I just looked back at that discussion in the archives 
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-02/msg00615.php). 
What was the original reason for the proposal? Space savings?

We could rename pg_attribute as pg_userattribute, and remove all the 
system attributes from that. To stay backwards-compatible, we could have 
a pg_attribute view on top of that contained the system attributes as well.

-- 
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Block B-Tree concept
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Block B-Tree concept