| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER COLUMN/logical column position |
| Date: | 2003-11-20 15:40:16 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0311201637350.26458-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> Exactly. I'm considerably more worried about breaking out-of-the-way
> places in the backend than I am about what order someone's admin tool
> presents the columns in.
Clearly, the effort of adding logical column numbers will consist of
making choices between physical and logical numbers in the backend in some
places. So one option is to replace some uses of attnum by attlognum.
The other optionis to replace *all* uses of attnum by attphysnum and then
replace some uses of attphysnum by attnum. To me, this looks like an
equal "risk" as far as the backend goes.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-20 15:49:26 | Re: ALTER COLUMN/logical column position |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-20 15:39:24 | Re: logical column position |