Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > Makes sense. Of course, we could make a syscache that didn't return
> > > system columns either.
> > >
> > > Actually, the original argument for negative attno's for dropped columns
> > > was exactly for this case, that the system column check would catch
> > > dropped columns too,
> >
> > > but it causes other problems that are harder to fix
> > > so we _dropped_ the idea.
> >
> > What does this mean ?
>
> Client programmers prefered the dropped flag rather than negative
> attno's so we went with that.
What I asked you is what *harder to fix* means.
> > BTW would we do nothing for clients after all ?
>
> Clients will now need to check that dropped flag.
Clients would have to check the flag everywhere
pg_attribute appears.
Why should clients do such a thing ?
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
