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

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-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

pgsql-hackers by date

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

pgsql-patches by date

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

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