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

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "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: 2006-12-22 09:25:08
Message-ID: E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57901A34F65@m0143.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches


> >> You could make a case that we need *three* numbers: a permanent
column
> >> ID, a display position, and a storage position.
>
> > Could this not be handled by some catalog fixup after an add/drop?
If we
> > get the having 3 numbers you will almost have me convinced that this

> > might be too complicated after all.
>
> 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.

I am still of the opinion, that the system tables as such are too
visible
to users and addon developers as to change the meaning of attnum.

And I don't quite see what the point is. To alter a table's column you
need
an exclusive lock, and plan invalidation (or are you intending to
invalidate only
plans that reference * ?). Once there you can just as well fix the
numbering.
Yes, it is more work :-(

Andreas

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Takayuki Tsunakawa 2006-12-22 09:38:49 Re: Load distributed checkpoint
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2006-12-22 09:10:15 Re: configure problem --with-libxml

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Takayuki Tsunakawa 2006-12-22 09:38:49 Re: Load distributed checkpoint
Previous Message ITAGAKI Takahiro 2006-12-22 09:09:33 Re: Load distributed checkpoint