Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> No, he only breaks even for client cleanliness --- either approach > >> *will* require changes in clients that look at pg_attribute. > > > Uh, Christopher already indicated three clients, psql, pg_dump, and > > another that will not require changes for Hiroshi's approach, but will > > require changes for isdropped. > > Oh? If either psql or pg_dump don't break, it's a mere coincidence, > because they certainly depend on attnum. (It's also pretty much > irrelevant considering they're both under our control and hence easily > fixed.) > > I'm fairly certain that Christopher is mistaken, anyhow. Check the > manipulations of attribute defaults for a counterexample in pg_dump.
Well, it seems isdropped is going to have to be checked by _any_ client, while holes in the number will have to be checked by _some_ clients. Is that 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 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
