To: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign 
In-reply-to: <03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B8259D66@mail.vale-housing.co.uk> 
References: <03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B8259D66@mail.vale-housing.co.uk>
Comments: In-reply-to "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
	message dated "Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:12:19 +0000"
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:48:41 -0500
Message-ID: <28363.1047343721@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes:
> What about the addition of pg_attribute.attrelid &
> pg_attribute.attname/attnum in RowDesription messages to identify the
> underlying attribute (where appropriate)?

Well, we can talk about it, but I still think that any frontend that
relies on such information is broken by design.  (And if that means the
JDBC spec is broken, then the JDBC spec is broken.)

Just to start with, if I do "SELECT * FROM view", am I going to see the
info associated with the view column, or with the hypothetical
underlying table column?  (Actually, didn't I already make a list of a
bunch of ways in which this concept is underspecified?  AFAIR, you
didn't suggest answers to any of those questions ... but we need answers
to all of them if we are going to implement the feature.)

			regards, tom lane