On Monday 21 February 2005 04:23, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
I'm wondering how useful it is to store explicit representations of the
system attributes in pg_attribute. We could very easily hard-wire those
things instead, which would make for a large reduction in the number of
entries
On Sunday 20 February 2005 12:30, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One of us is not understanding the other :-) I'm asking if I have a
piece of code that does something like select attname from pg_attribute
where attrelid = 'stock'::regclass::oid with the intent of
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does anyone know of
client code that actually pays attention to pg_attribute rows with
negative attnums?
Well, the corner case would be for those times when we use oid for updating
specific rows in a table, if a user creates there own oid column then
On Tuesday 22 February 2005 10:32, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does anyone know of
client code that actually pays attention to pg_attribute rows with
negative attnums?
Well, the corner case would be for those times when we use oid for
updating specific rows
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 22 February 2005 10:32, Tom Lane wrote:
Probably ctid is the more interesting case; I'm pretty sure ODBC relies
on ctid as a short-term-unique row identifier.
Yeah... how many utility tools out there reference system columns explicitly?
I
Tom Lane wrote:
Well, that probably knocks out my thought that we could stop reserving
the system column names (at least ctid and xmin, which are the two that
actually seem useful to ordinary clients, need to stay reserved). But
it still seems like we don't have to represent these columns
Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
it still seems like we don't have to represent these columns explicitly
in pg_attribute.
Hm, technically you might be right. Still, I like pgAdmin3 to show that
columns (when show system objects is enabled) for teaching purposes,
so
Tom Lane wrote:
Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
it still seems like we don't have to represent these columns explicitly
in pg_attribute.
Hm, technically you might be right. Still, I like pgAdmin3 to show that
columns (when show system objects is enabled) for teaching
I'm wondering how useful it is to store explicit representations of the
system attributes in pg_attribute. We could very easily hard-wire those
things instead, which would make for a large reduction in the number of
entries in pg_attribute. (In the current regression database nearly
half of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It occurs to me that without the explicit entries, we could stop
considering the system names to be reserved column names --- that is,
we could allow users to create ordinary columns by these names.
(The procedure for looking up a column name
On Sunday 20 February 2005 00:25, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I am understanding this correctly, they could only be displayed if
selected explicitly right?
That's always been true. The behavior at the level of SQL commands
wouldn't change. The question is
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One of us is not understanding the other :-) I'm asking if I have a piece of
code that does something like select attname from pg_attribute where attrelid
= 'stock'::regclass::oid with the intent of displaying all those attnames,
then the system atts
Dave Page wrote:
Does anyone know of client code that actually pays attention to
pg_attribute rows with negative attnums?
pgAdmin certainly knows about them, but I don't believe it'll break
if they go.
It only knows that attnum 0 must be a system column; no specific
knowledge or interpretation
Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does anyone know of client code that actually pays attention to
pg_attribute rows with negative attnums?
Would those columns remain selectable for debugging/maintenance
purposes, despite not appearing in system catalogs?
Certainly. They just wouldn't
On Saturday 19 February 2005 12:17, Tom Lane wrote:
Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does anyone know of client code that actually pays attention to
pg_attribute rows with negative attnums?
Would those columns remain selectable for debugging/maintenance
purposes, despite not
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I am understanding this correctly, they could only be displayed if
selected
explicitly right?
That's always been true. The behavior at the level of SQL commands
wouldn't change. The question is whether any apps out there examine
pg_attribute and
I'm wondering how useful it is to store explicit representations of the
system attributes in pg_attribute. We could very easily hard-wire those
things instead, which would make for a large reduction in the number of
entries in pg_attribute. (In the current regression database nearly
half of the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Tom Lane
Sent: Fri 2/18/2005 8:48 PM
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: [HACKERS] Get rid of system attributes in pg_attribute?
Does anyone know of client code that actually pays attention
to pg_attribute rows
18 matches
Mail list logo
