| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-22 02:28:58 | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2006-12-22 01:07:52 | Re: [PATCHES] Load distributed checkpoint patch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-22 02:28:58 | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2006-12-22 01:07:52 | Re: [PATCHES] Load distributed checkpoint patch |