Re: AW: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN

On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Tom Lane wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> > On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at> writes:
> >>>> My conclusion would be that we need both:
> >>>> 1. a fast system table only solution with physical/logical column id
> >>>> 2. a tool that does the cleanup (e.g. vacuum) 
> >> 
> >> But the peak space usage during cleanup must still be 2X.
> 
> > Is there no way of doing this such that we have N tuple types in the
> > table?  So that UPDATE/INSERTs are minus the extra column, while the old
> > ones just have that column marked as deleted?
> 
> If we bite the bullet to the extent of supporting a distinction between
> physical and logical column numbers, then ISTM there's no strong need
> to do any of this other stuff at all. 

what does/would it take to implement this?