| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Phil Currier" <pcurrier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Column storage positions |
| Date: | 2007-02-22 17:25:10 |
| Message-ID: | E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57901CAF723@m0143.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > And I also see a lot of unhappiness from users of system tables when
> > column numbers all over the system tables would not be logical
column
> > positions any more.
>
> Are you arguing against the feature? Or against the suggested design?
Against the design.
> I should have thought (without much looking) one possible way
> to implement it would be to put Oids on pg_attribute for the
> permanent id, and keep attnum for the (now mutable) logical
> order, adding a further column for the physical order.
Yes, that was the idea (not oid but some number), and I am arguing
against it. Imho people are used to see the logical position in e.g.
pg_index
I know it is a lot of work to update all those dependencies in the
system tables to reorder logical position, but that is the path I think
should be taken. And the first step in that direction is Phil's patch.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Warren Turkal | 2007-02-22 17:30:12 | Re: SCMS question |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-02-22 17:19:43 | Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3 |