Tom Lane writes:
> So are you voting against adding any attribute-ID info to
> RowDescription? While I'm not that thrilled with it myself, it seems
> relatively harmless as long as we can keep the overhead down. I'm
> okay with attrelid/attnum, but would gripe about including more than that.
At the beginning of this thread you raised a number of points where the
identity of the column of origin is not well-defined. I haven't seen an
answer to that. Whether the identity of the column is provided through
numbers or, as was originally requested, through names seems to be
irrelevant for those questions.
Now assume someone wanted to define a method to identify the column of
origin for a limited set of query types. Would you align the definition
with what the current planner and executor structures can easily give you
or would you use a more "mathematical" definition? And assuming it's the
latter, do you feel confident that that definition will not constrain
development of the planner and executor structures in the future?
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
