X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EFB947592C for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:37:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2B2bkub001943; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:37:46 -0500 (EST) To: Bruce Momjian Cc: Dave Page , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign In-reply-to: <200303110227.h2B2R6n14056@candle.pha.pa.us> References: <200303110227.h2B2R6n14056@candle.pha.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:27:06 -0500" Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:37:45 -0500 Message-ID: <1942.1047350265@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200303/404 X-Sequence-Number: 36650 Bruce Momjian writes: > I was willing to add a hack to enable default column labels to be > "table.column" --- that seemed like the least obtrusive. Most of the definitional issues still apply: which table name are you going to insert, and under what conditions? If we're revising the protocol, there's no reason to hack up the column label to carry two pieces of info; it'd be cleaner to provide a separate slot in the T message to carry the table name. I just want to see a reasonably complete spec for what the feature is supposed to do, before we buy into it ... regards, tom lane