Up! Anybody will answer about the patch?
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Oleg Serov <serovov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> How about adding this patch to postgresql it will slove the problem?
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Greg Stark<gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> when i done dump->restore i
> >>> have surprise,
> >>> Column ordering was changed.
> >> This is not a bug, it's the intended behavior.
> > I thought that was a bug, just one that was too hard to fix for the
> > problems it caused. It might be more fixable if we get around to the
> > work that was discussed earlier where we separate attnum into three
> > different values.
> > Oleg: note that having the columns in the same position allows some
> > optimizations in the executor so it's probably a good thing if it
> > hasn't broken your application.
> > --
> > greg
> > http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf<http://mit.edu/%7Egsstark/resume.pdf>
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2010-02-26 15:13:51|
|Subject: Re: Diffrent column ordering after dump/restore tables with INHERITS|
|Previous:||From: Oleg Serov||Date: 2010-02-26 14:32:51|
|Subject: Re: Bug in PL/PgSQL "SELECT .. INTO" statement parser|