Re: Column storage positions

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: "Phil Currier" <pcurrier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Column storage positions
Date: 2007-02-21 00:54:42
Message-ID: 200702201954.42880.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tuesday 20 February 2007 16:07, Phil Currier wrote:
> Another problem relates to upgrades. With tools like pg_migrator now
> on pgfoundry, people will eventually expect quick upgrades that don't
> require rewriting each table's data. Storage positions would cause a
> problem for every version X -> version Y upgrade with Y >= 8.3, even
> when X is also >= 8.3, because a version X table could always have
> been altered without a rewrite into a structure different from what
> Y's CREATE TABLE will choose.

If you are using pg_migrator your not going to be moving the datafiles on disk
anyway,so pg_migrator's behavior shouldnt change terribly. If your doing
pg_dump based upgrade, presumably pg_dump could write it's create statements
with the columns in attstorpos order and set attnum = attstorpos, preserving
the physical layout from the previous install.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-02-21 01:07:11 Re: [HACKERS] timestamp subtraction (was Re: formatting intervals with to_char)
Previous Message Nikolay Samokhvalov 2007-02-20 23:59:03 --enable-xml instead of --with-libxml?