Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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? > > What's your point? No client that examines pg_attribute can be trusted > until it's been examined pretty closely (as in, more closely than > Christopher looked at pg_dump). I'd prefer to see us keep the backend > simple and trustworthy, rather than pursue a largely-illusory idea that > we might be saving some trouble on the client side.
Largely-illusory? Almost every pg_attribute query will have to be modified for isdropped, while Hiroshi's approach requires so few changes, we are having trouble even finding a query that needs to be modified. That's pretty clear to me. -- 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 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
