Re: Happy column adding (was RE: [HACKERS] Happy column dropping)

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@wallace.ece.rice.edu>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Date: 2000-01-25T22:38:22Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> It occurs to me that in at least some of the places where attribute
> numbers are currently used, we ought to use *neither* logical nor
> physical column position, but rather a permanent unique ID --- the
> attribute tuple's OID would work, if it's assigned soon enough to be
> used for constraints given in CREATE TABLE.  (Otherwise we could assign
> "column serial numbers" that count from 1 for each relation, but are
> never changed or recycled within the relation.)
> 
> In particular, if parsetrees for stored rules and constraints worked
> that way, renumbering attributes that follow the added/dropped column
> would become a lot less painful.

I am going to object to any use of invisible columns just to get a nice
ALTER DROP COLUMN capability.  It doesn't seeem with the added code
complexity.  Our code is complex enough.  Why add more to it just for
one feature.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026