From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: logical column ordering |
Date: | 2015-02-26 22:36:19 |
Message-ID: | 30251.1424990179@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> writes:
> On 2/26/15 4:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Oh, I didn't realize there weren't commands to change the LCO. Without
>>> at least SQL syntax for LCO, I don't see why we'd take it; this sounds
>>> more like a WIP patch.
>> The reason for doing it this way is that changing the underlying
>> architecture is really hard, without having to bear an endless hackers
>> bike shed discussion about the best userland syntax to use. It seems a
>> much better approach to do the actually difficult part first, then let
>> the rest to be argued to death by others and let those others do the
>> easy part (and take all the credit along with that); that way, that
>> discussion does not kill other possible uses that the new architecture
>> allows.
> +1. This patch is already several years old; lets not delay it further.
I tend to agree with that, but how are we going to test things if there's
no mechanism to create a table in which the orderings are different?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-02-26 22:41:09 | Re: Renaming MemoryContextResetAndDeleteChildren to MemoryContextReset |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-02-26 22:34:46 | Re: logical column ordering |