| From: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Jon Jensen <jon(at)endpoint(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: logical column position |
| Date: | 2003-11-18 02:45:43 |
| Message-ID: | 1069123542.1633.30.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 20:24, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Right -- AFAICS, the only change in COPY compatibility would be if you
> > COPY TO'd a table and then changed the logical column order in some
> > fashion, you would no longer be able to restore the dump (unless you
> > specified a column list for the COPY FROM -- which, btw, pg_dump
> > does). I don't think it will be a problem, I just thought I'd mention
> > it.
>
> Well it's the same problem as if you'd dropped a column in the middle of
> the table.
>
> BTW, one main consideration is that all the postgres admin apps will now
> need to support ORDER BY attlognum for 7.5+.
Yeah... how about maintaining attnum for the logical attribute number
and create an attphysnum or something for the physical position instead?
This is more intrusive into the source, but you don't need to teach new
tricks to external entities.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2003-11-18 02:49:28 | Re: Release cycle length |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-11-18 02:41:20 | Re: Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? |