Re: Phantom Command ID
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Phantom Command ID |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4519016C.3040308@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Phantom Command ID (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Phantom Command ID
|
Список | 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: