Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
Date: 2006-12-20 04:29:24
Message-ID: 16675.1166588964@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> Force references to go through macros which implement the lookup for the
> appropriate type?  ie: LOGICAL_COL(table_oid,2) vs.
> PHYSICAL_COL(table_oid,1)  Perhaps that's too simplistic.

It doesn't really address the question of how you know which one to
use at any particular line of code; or even more to the point, what
mechanism will warn you if you use the wrong one.

My gut feeling about this is that we could probably enforce such a
distinction if we were using C++, but while coding in C I have no
confidence in it.  (And no, that's not a vote to move to C++ ...)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Shane AmblerDate: 2006-12-20 04:34:55
Subject: Re: effective_cache_size vs units
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2006-12-20 04:23:22
Subject: Re: Companies Contributing to Open Source

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2006-12-20 11:03:11
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Enums patch v2
Previous:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2006-12-20 04:12:50
Subject: Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group