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

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Robert Treat" <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
Date: 2006-12-21 16:06:53
Message-ID: E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57901A34ECC@m0143.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches


> > I don't think we should expose the offset to user view at all - this
is
> > just for internal use, no?
>
> The thing is, physical index numbers has meaning, the logical index
> number does not. In a view definition we're going to store the
physical
> index, not the logical one, for example. We don't want rearranging
> columns to invalidate view definitions or plans.

I think we lack a definition here:

logical number: the order of columns when doing select *
physical number: the position inside the heap tuple (maybe with
offset)

All views and plans and index definitions and most everyting else
needs to reference the logical number.

Andreas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-12-21 16:07:20 Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2006-12-21 16:05:16 pgsql: Initial SQL/XML support: xml data type and initial set of

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-12-21 16:07:20 Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-12-21 15:50:59 Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2