Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > > > If the client has to bear the some part, isn't the invisible > > > column approach much simpler ? > > > > > > I've put a pretty much time into DROP COLUMN feature but > > > I am really disappointed to see the comments in this thread. > > > What DROP COLUMN has brought me seems only a waste of time. > > > > > > Possibly I must have introduced either implementation forcibly. > > > > I understand. I personally think maybe we have been a little to picky > > about patches being accepted. Sometimes when something is not 100% > > perfect, we do nothing rather than accept the patch, and replace or > > improve it later. The DROP COLUMN approach you had clearly is one of > > them. > > I don't complain about the rejection of my patch. > If it has an essential flaw we had better reject it. > What I'm complaining is why it is OK now whereas > there's nothing new.
Sure, I understand. My physical/logical idea may have the same problems as your DROP COLUMN idea, and may be as rapidly rejected. I am just throwing it out for discussion. I am not sure I like it. :-) -- 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
