From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Tue Jun 1 22:31:18 1999 Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [209.152.193.4]) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id WAA09988 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:31:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [209.167.229.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$ Revision: 1.18 $) with ESMTP id WAA18944 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:08:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [209.167.229.1]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA75604; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:01:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org) Received: by hub.org (TLB v0.10a (1.23 tibbs 1997/01/09 00:29:32)); Tue, 01 Jun 1999 22:01:11 +0000 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA75519 for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:01:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hub.org: majordom set sender to owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org using -f Received: from localhost.localdomain (h246.ozemail2.ozemail.com.au [203.108.14.246]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA75452 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:00:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from chris.bitmead@bigfoot.com) Received: from bigfoot.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA04059 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 10:50:11 +1000 Message-ID: <37547FC3.40106A5E@bigfoot.com> Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 10:50:11 +1000 From: Chris Bitmead X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.6 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-hackers@hub.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN References: <199906011436.KAA23479@candle.pha.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org Precedence: bulk Status: RO Bruce Momjian wrote: > Our TODO now has: > > * ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN to inherited table put column in wrong place > > I don't think any of us understand the issues on this one. Let me guess at the problem. When you add a column, it doesn't change all the records, therefore the column must be added at the end. This means that the columns will not be in the same order as if you had created them from scratch. There seem to be three solutions: a) Go to a much more sophisticated schema system, with versions and version numbers (fairly hard but desirable to fix other schema change problems). Then insert the column in the position it is supposed to be in. b) Fix the copy command to input and output the columns, not in the order they are in, but in the order they would be in on re-creation. c) make the copy command take arguments specifying the field names, like INSERT can do. I think it would be good if Postgres had all 3 features. Probably (b) is the least work. From owner-pgsql-general@hub.org Fri Jul 9 04:01:16 1999 Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [209.152.193.4]) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id EAA22565 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:01:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [209.167.229.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$ Revision: 1.18 $) with ESMTP id DAA10238 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 03:56:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [209.167.229.1]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA79895; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 03:53:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from owner-pgsql-general@hub.org) Received: by hub.org (TLB v0.10a (1.23 tibbs 1997/01/09 00:29:32)); Fri, 09 Jul 1999 03:47:45 +0000 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA79076 for pgsql-general-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 03:47:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from owner-pgsql-general@postgreSQL.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hub.org: majordom set sender to owner-pgsql-general@postgreSQL.org using -f Received: from ns.idianet.net ([195.154.201.1]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA79054 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 03:47:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from haj@idianet.net) Received: from kosovo (ppp150-paris2.isdnet.net [194.149.182.150]) by ns.idianet.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA08143; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:43:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <000c01bec9df$3704bd20$0601a8c0@kosovo.idianet.net> Reply-To: "Jonathan davis" From: "Jonathan davis" To: "Bruce Momjian" Cc: "Pgsql-General@Postgresql. Org" Subject: Re: [GENERAL] just little BUG Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:46:42 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-pgsql-general@postgreSQL.org Precedence: bulk Status: ROr >[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...] >> hello all >> >> normaly a UNIQUE PRIMARY KEY is unique but >> when you use a heritage, you can insert a duplicate key !!!! > >I assume you mean inheritance. > >Can you send us a little test sample please? > >-- hello all this is the problem: example: test=> CREATE TABLE MAN(name char(10) UNIQUE PRIMARY KEY);T test=> CREATE TABLE PROFESSOR(scool char(20))INHERITS(MAN); test=> INSERT INTO PROFESSOR(name) VALUES('DAVIS'); INSERT 54424 1 test=> INSERT INTO PROFESSOR(name) VALUES('DAVIS'); INSERT 54425 1 From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Tue Apr 20 10:34:34 1999 Received: from hub.org (hub.org [209.47.145.100]) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id KAA28480 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:34:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA12281; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:33:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org) Received: by hub.org (TLB v0.10a (1.23 tibbs 1997/01/09 00:29:32)); Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:32:04 +0000 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) id KAA11432 for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:32:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org) Received: from tech.com.au (IDENT:root@techpt.lnk.telstra.net [139.130.75.122]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA11378 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:31:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from chris.bitmead@bigfoot.com) Received: from bigfoot.com (chris@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tech.com.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA21255 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:31:32 +1000 Message-ID: <371C8FC3.4804CF87@bigfoot.com> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:31:31 +0000 From: Chris Bitmead X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hackers@postgreSQL.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Heads up: does RULES regress test still work for you? References: <199904151054.UAA07367@tech.com.au> <3715C69E.AE517ADB@bigfoot.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org Precedence: bulk Status: RO Does the following indicate a bug? It sure is wierd. Maybe some of these statements aren't supported by postgresql (??), but the outcome doesn't make sense to me. httpd=> CREATE TABLE x (y text); CREATE httpd=> CREATE VIEW z AS select * from x; CREATE httpd=> CREATE TABLE a (b text) INHERITS(z); CREATE httpd=> INSERT INTO x VALUES ('foo'); INSERT 168602 1 httpd=> select * from z*; y --- foo foo (2 rows) How did we suddenly get two rows?? -- Chris Bitmead http://www.bigfoot.com/~chris.bitmead mailto:chris.bitmead@bigfoot.com From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Tue May 25 11:01:16 1999 Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [209.152.193.4]) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA15867 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 11:01:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [209.167.229.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$ Revision: 1.18 $) with ESMTP id KAA10712 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 10:55:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [209.167.229.1]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07206; Tue, 25 May 1999 10:45:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org) Received: by hub.org (TLB v0.10a (1.23 tibbs 1997/01/09 00:29:32)); Tue, 25 May 1999 10:43:02 +0000 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06706 for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 25 May 1999 10:43:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hub.org: majordom set sender to owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org using -f Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [206.210.65.6]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06690 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 10:42:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA02984 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 10:42:39 -0400 (EDT) To: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org Subject: [HACKERS] INSERT INTO view means what exactly? Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 10:42:39 -0400 Message-ID: <2981.927643359@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org Precedence: bulk Status: ROr With current sources: regression=> CREATE TABLE x (y text); CREATE regression=> CREATE VIEW z AS select * from x; CREATE regression=> INSERT INTO x VALUES ('foo'); INSERT 411635 1 regression=> INSERT INTO z VALUES ('bar'); INSERT 411636 1 regression=> select * from x; y --- foo (1 row) regression=> select * from z; y --- foo (1 row) OK, where'd tuple 411636 go? Seems to me that the insert should either have been rejected or caused an insert into x, depending on how transparent you think views are (I always thought they were read-only?). Dropping the data into never-never land and giving a misleading success response code is not my idea of proper behavior. regards, tom lane From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Mon Jan 24 23:46:25 2000 Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id XAA25453 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:46:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA81794; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:01:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers) Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 24 Jan 2000 22:59:46 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA80721 for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 22:58:59 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.166.2]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA80619 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 22:58:33 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA11576; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 22:57:12 -0500 (EST) To: Don Baccus cc: "Hiroshi Inoue" , "Peter Eisentraut" , "PostgreSQL Development" Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Happy column dropping In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.20000124184137.01069490@mail.pacifier.com> References: <001001bf66d7$b531ba00$2801007e@tpf.co.jp> <001001bf66d7$b531ba00$2801007e@tpf.co.jp> <3.0.1.32.20000124184137.01069490@mail.pacifier.com> Comments: In-reply-to Don Baccus message dated "Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:41:37 -0800" Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 22:57:12 -0500 Message-ID: <11573.948772632@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org Status: RO Don Baccus writes: > Just a reality check for my learning of the internals. Out of curiousity > I coincidently have spent the last hour looking to see how add column's > implemented. It doesn't appear to do anything other than the new attribute > to the proper system table. heap_getattr() just returns null if you ask > for an attribute past the end of the tuple. > This would appear to be (at least one reason) why you can't add a "not null" > constraint to a column you're adding to an existing relation, or set the > new column to some non-null default value. > Correct? (again, to see if my eyeballs and brain are working in synch > tonight) Yup, that's about the size of it. ADD COLUMN doesn't actually touch the table itself, so it can only add a column that's initially all NULLs. And even this depends on some uncomfortable assumptions about the robustness of heap_getattr(). I have always wondered whether it works if you ADD COLUMN a 33'rd column (or anything that is just past the next padding boundary for the null-values bitmap). Another problem with it is seen when you do a recursive ADD COLUMN in an inheritance tree. The added column has the first free column number in each table, which generally means that it has different numbers in the children than in the parent. There are some kluges to make this sort-of-work for simple cases, but a lot of stuff fails unpleasantly --- Chris Bitmead can show you some scars from that, IIRC. > Does your comment imply that it's planned to change this, i.e. actually > add the new column to each tuple in the relation rather than use the > existing, somewhat elegant hack? That's what I would like to see: all the children should have the same column numbers for all columns that they inherit from the parent. (Now, this would mean not only physically altering the tuples of the children, but also renumbering their added columns, which has implications on stored rules and triggers and so forth. It'd be painful, no doubt about it. Still, I'd rather pay the price in the seldom-used ADD COLUMN case than try to deal with out-of-sync column numbers in many other, more commonly exercised, code paths.) regards, tom lane ************ From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Tue Jan 25 18:34:14 2000 Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id TAA04935 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 19:34:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA31870; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 19:22:44 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers) Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Tue, 25 Jan 2000 19:21:06 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA31364 for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 19:20:07 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org) Received: from hu.tm.ee (ppp809.tele2.ee [212.107.37.109]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA31158 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 19:19:04 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from hannu@tm.ee) Received: from tm.ee (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hu.tm.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B6213469; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 02:25:13 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <388E3EE9.46880647@tm.ee> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 02:25:13 +0200 From: Hannu Krosing Organization: Trust-O-Matic =?iso-8859-1?Q?O=DC?= X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13-7mdk i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Don Baccus Cc: Tom Lane , "Ross J. Reedstrom" , PostgreSQL Development Subject: Re: Happy column adding (was RE: [HACKERS] Happy columndropping) References: <3.0.1.32.20000125113001.00f8acb0@mail.pacifier.com> <20000125114453.E423@rice.edu> <001401bf6704$5ca7e3a0$2801007e@tpf.co.jp> <3.0.1.32.20000125080125.00f7f160@mail.pacifier.com> <20000125114453.E423@rice.edu> <3.0.1.32.20000125113001.00f8acb0@mail.pacifier.com> <3.0.1.32.20000125151022.00f8c4c0@mail.pacifier.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org Status: OR Don Baccus wrote: > > Ahhh...yes. I haven't looked at the inheritance code, yet, but I see > what you're saying. I think. Do child-table columns follow parent-table > columns by some chance (in today's absolute column number scheme)? > > >If we were willing to hardwire the assumption that DROP COLUMN never > >physically drops a column, but only hides it and adjusts logical column > >numbers, then the physical column numbers could serve as permanent IDs; > >so we'd only need two numbers not three. This might be good, or not. > > Yes. But if I'm right about how child-table columns are numbered, > wouldn't add column still cause a problem, i.e. you'd still have to > change their physical column number? If we allow deleted column as a basic feature of postgres, it could be like that base: COL1 | COL2 | COL3 child: COL1 | COL2 | COL3 | COL4 after add column 5 to base table base: COL1 | COL2 | COL3 | del4 | COL5 child: COL1 | COL2 | COL3 | COL4 | COL5 after add column 6 to child base: COL1 | COL2 | COL3 | del4 | COL5 child: COL1 | COL2 | COL3 | COL4 | COL5 | COL6 after drop column 2 from base table base: COL1 | del2 | COL3 | del4 | COL5 child: COL1 | del2 | COL3 | COL4 | COL5 | COL6 dropping column from child table that is not a deleted column in parent is not allowed. The delN columns are always NULLed on reading tuple and are written as proper null columns (taking up space only in NULL bitmask) multiple inheritance is tricky and _requires_ unique column ids maybe oids from pg_attribute to be doable. ----------------- Hannu ************ From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Thu Jan 27 11:48:26 2000 Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id MAA25953 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:48:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA22723; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:39:27 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers) Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:36:16 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA22021 for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:35:23 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org) Received: from merganser.its.uu.se (merganser.its.uu.se [130.238.6.236]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA21886 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:34:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from peter@localhost.its.uu.se) Received: from regulus.its.uu.se ([130.238.7.19]:61911 "EHLO regulus.its.uu.se") by merganser.its.uu.se with ESMTP id ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 18:34:06 +0100 Received: from peter (helo=localhost) by regulus.its.uu.se with local-esmtp (Exim 3.02 #2) id 12DsvR-0000HH-00; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 18:41:45 +0100 Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 18:41:45 +0100 (CET) From: Peter Eisentraut To: Tom Lane cc: PostgreSQL Development Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Column ADDing issues In-Reply-To: <15550.948845404@sss.pgh.pa.us> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org Status: ORr On 2000-01-25, Tom Lane mentioned: > > Everything has its order and it's not like the inheritance as such is > > broken. > > Yes, a whole bunch of stuff is broken after this happens. Go back and > consult the archives --- or maybe Chris Bitmead will fill you in; he's > got plenty of scars to show for this set of problems. (All I recall > offhand is that pg_dump and reload can fail to generate a working > database.) The bottom line is that it would be a lot nicer if column c > had the same column position in both the parent table and the child > table(s). This should be fixed in pg_dump by infering something via the oids of the pg_attribute entries. No need to mess up the backend for it. Maybe pg_dump should optionally dump schemas in terms of insert into pg_something commands rather than actual DDL. ;) > > I suggest you be very cautious about messing with ALTER TABLE until you > understand why inheritance makes it such a headache ;-) I'm just trying to get the defaults and constraints working. If inheritance stays broken the way it previously was, it's beyond my powers. But I get the feeling that people rather not alter their tables unless they have *perfect* alter table commands. I don't feel like arguing with them, they'll just have to do without then. -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden ************