From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patch by request at pgcon |
Date: | 2011-05-19 17:49:33 |
Message-ID: | 20110519174933.GM4548@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com) wrote:
> Excerpts from Greg Stark's message of jue may 19 12:11:29 -0400 2011:
> > Adding such a feature would be pretty trivial, attached is a patch.
>
> Interesting, but not so trivial I think -- I mean if you're doing this I
> think you should add a column with the nominal position of the column in
> the table, so that it enables you to find it quickly in the other sort
> order.
Afraid that I have to disagree.. The attnum (or, really, worse, since
you'd have to actually count/number the non-dropped columns only..)
doesn't strike me as being useful to the user for much of anything,
especially since we don't have the number anywhere in the default
listing.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-05-19 17:50:29 | Re: LOCK DATABASE |
Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2011-05-19 17:49:11 | Re: LOCK DATABASE |