Re: Phantom Command ID
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Phantom Command ID |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 22980.1159269584@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Phantom Command ID (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Phantom Command ID
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> 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. > What was the original reason for the proposal? Space savings? Partly that, and partly that it'd make it much easier to alter the set of system attributes. > 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. I don't really think this is necessary. How many client programs have you seen that don't explicitly exclude attnum<0 anyway? The places that will need work are inside the backend, and a view won't help them. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: