> > Well, obviously I prefer the attisdropped approach. I think > it's clearer > > and there's less confusion. As a head developer for phpPgAdmin > that's what > > I'd prefer... Hiroshi obviously prefers his solution, but > doesn't object to > > OK, can you explain the issues from a server and client perspective, > i.e. renumbering vs isdropped?
Well in the renumbering case, the client needs to know about missing attnos and it has to know to ignore negative attnos (which it probably does already). ie. psql and pg_dump wouldn't have to be modified in that case. In the isdropped case, the client needs to know to exclude any column with 'attisdropped' set to true. So in both cases, the client needs to be updated. I personally prefer the explicit 'is dropped' as opposed to the implicit 'negative number', but hey. *sigh* Now I've gone and made an argument for the renumbering case. I'm going to have a good look at Hiroshi's old code and see which one is less complicated, etc. So far all I've really need to do is redefine Hiroshi's COLUMN_DROPPED macro. I'm sure that both methods could be made to handle a 'ALTER TABLE/SET TYPE' syntax. Chris ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
