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

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

From: Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>,Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>,Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>,Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
Date: 2006-12-22 01:48:49
Message-ID: 8764c4em4e.fsf@stark.xeocode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Actually, the more I think about it the more I think that 3 numbers
> might be the answer.  99% of the code would use only the permanent ID.

Don't we already have such a permanent number -- just one we don't use
anywhere in the data model? Namely the oid of the pg_attribute entry. It's
actually a bit odd that we don't use it since we use the oid of just about
every other system catalog record as the primary key.


-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-12-22 02:28:58
Subject: Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2006-12-22 01:07:52
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Load distributed checkpoint patch

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-12-22 02:28:58
Subject: Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2006-12-22 01:07:52
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Load distributed checkpoint patch

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