RE: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN
Hiroshi Inoue <inoue@tpf.co.jp>
From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "Chris Bitmead" <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>, "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2000-06-13T06:28:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] > > "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes: > > create table t1 (i1 int4); > > create table t2 (i2 int4) inherits t1; > > create table t3 (i3 int4) inherits t2; > > alter table t1 add column i4 int4; > > > For each table,the list of (column, logical number, physical number) > > would be as follows. > > > t1 (i1, 1, 1) (i4, 2, 2) > > t2 (i1, 1, 1) (i4, 2, 3) (i2, 3, 2) > > t3 (i1, 1, 1) (i4, 2, 4) (i2, 3, 2) (i3, 4, 3) > > > At this point the compilation of 'select * from t1(*?)' would mean > > select (physical #1),(physical #2) from t1 + > > select (physical #1),(physical #3) from t2 + > > select (physical #1),(physical #4) from t3 > > > Note that physical # aren't common for column i4. > > That's no different from the current situation: Yes your proposal has no problem currently. I'm only anxious about oo feature. Recently there has been a discussion around oo and we would be able to expect the progress in the near future. If oo people never mind, your proposal would be OK. Regards. Hiroshi Inoue Inoue@tpf.co.jp