Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > > > > As I remember, Hiroshi's drop column changed the attribute number to a > > > > special negative value, which required lots of changes to track. > > > > > > ??? What do you mean by *lots of* ? > > > > Yes, please remind me. Was your solution renumbering the attno values? > > Yes though I don't intend to object to Christopher's proposal. > > > I think there are fewer cases to fix if we keep the existing attribute > > numbering and just mark the column as deleted. Is this accurate? > > No. I don't understand why you think so.
With the isdropped column, you really only need to deal with '*' expansion in a few places, and prevent the column from being accessed. With renumbering, the backend loops that go through the attnos have to be dealt with. Is this correct? I certainly prefer attno renumbering to isdropped because it allows us to get DROP COLUMN without any client changes, or at least with fewer because the dropped column has a negative attno. Is this accurate? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
