| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
| Date: | 2006-12-22 02:28:58 |
| Message-ID: | 18938.1166754538@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> 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.
> Don't we already have such a permanent number -- just one we don't use
> anywhere in the data model? Namely the oid of the pg_attribute entry.
Nope, because pg_attribute hasn't got OIDs.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2006-12-22 02:48:43 | Re: [PATCHES] Load distributed checkpoint patch |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2006-12-22 01:48:49 | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2006-12-22 02:48:43 | Re: [PATCHES] Load distributed checkpoint patch |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2006-12-22 01:48:49 | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |