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: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
Date: 2006-12-21 15:50:59
Message-ID: 19759.1166716259@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> The thing is, physical index numbers has meaning, the logical index
> number does not. In a view definition we're going to store the physical
> index, not the logical one, for example.

Really?  To me that's one of a large number of questions that are
unresolved about how we'd do this.  You can make a case for either
choice in quite a number of places.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2006-12-21 15:52:46
Subject: Re: ERROR: tuple concurrently updated
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-12-21 15:47:52
Subject: Re: New version of money type

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SDDate: 2006-12-21 16:06:53
Subject: Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
Previous:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2006-12-21 15:37:03
Subject: Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2

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