| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: logical column position | 
| Date: | 2003-11-21 14:30:11 | 
| Message-ID: | 1069425011.10333.12494.camel@camel | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 23:27, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> > Actually, I deliberately chose attpos rather than attlognum (which is
> > what some people had been calling this feature earlier). My reasoning
> > was that the "logical number" is really a nonsensical idea: we just
> > invented it on the spot.
> 
> True ...
> 
> > In contrast, a "position" is a fairly natural
> > thing for an attribute to have -- it's a notion with some counterpart
> > in the real world.
> 
> But "position" could at least as logically be considered to mean the
> physical position in the tuple.  I still say that these names are ripe
> for confusion.
> 
> I don't have a better choice of name offhand, but if we spend 1% of the
> time already spent arguing about these issues on finding a better name,
> I'm sure we can think of one ;-)
> 
Seems merging the two would work... attlogpos, the attributes logical
position.
Robert Treat
-- 
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2003-11-21 14:31:49 | Re: [HACKERS] More detail on settings for pgavd? | 
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2003-11-21 14:14:14 | Re: [HACKERS] More detail on settings for pgavd? |