Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
Date: 2006-12-30 04:46:27
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 11:43:27AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> You could make a case that we need *three* numbers: a permanent column
> >> ID, a display position, and a storage position.
> > Could this not be handled by some catalog fixup after an add/drop? If we
> > get the having 3 numbers you will almost have me convinced that this
> > might be too complicated after all.
> 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.
> Display position would be used in *exactly* one place, namely while
> expanding "SELECT foo.*" --- I can't think of any other part of the
> backend that would care about it. (Obviously, client-side code such
> as psql's \d would use it too.) Use of storage position could be
> localized into a few low-level tuple access functions, probably.
> The problems we've been having with the concept stem precisely from
> trying to misuse either display or storage position as a permanent ID.
> That's fine as long as it actually is permanent, but as soon as you
> want to change it then you have problems. We should all understand
> this perfectly well from a database theory standpoint: pg_attribute
> has to have a persistent primary key. (attrelid, attnum) is that key,
> and we can't go around altering a column's attnum without creating
> problems for ourselves.

Is there enough consensus on this to add it to the TODO?
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB 512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonah H. Harris 2006-12-30 05:49:19 Re: WITH support
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-12-30 04:39:40 Re: TODO: GNU TLS

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-12-30 18:53:25 Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #2846: inconsistent and
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-12-30 04:08:04 Re: Load distributed checkpoint