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

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

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)it(dot)is(dot)rice(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>,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 13:59:21
Message-ID: 200612201459.24704.peter_e@gmx.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Am Mittwoch, 20. Dezember 2006 14:20 schrieb Kenneth Marshall:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 01:26:59PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 20. Dezember 2006 04:44 schrieb Tom Lane:
> > > If you can show me a reasonably bulletproof or machine-checkable way to
> > > keep the two kinds of column numbers distinct, I'd be all for it.
> >
> > The only way I can see is to make the domains of the numbers distinct.
>
> Negative vs. positive numbers?

That would be an obvious choice, but negative column numbers are already in 
use for system columns.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-12-20 14:11:48
Subject: Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
Previous:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2006-12-20 13:48:46
Subject: Re: Load distributed checkpoint

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-12-20 14:11:48
Subject: Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
Previous:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2006-12-20 13:48:46
Subject: Re: Load distributed checkpoint

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