| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Phil Currier <pcurrier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Column storage positions |
| Date: | 2007-02-21 16:22:26 |
| Message-ID: | 45DC71C2.2090400@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Florian G. Pflug wrote:
>
> I think you'd want to have a flag per field that tell you if the user
> has overridden the storage pos for that specific field. Otherwise,
> the next time you have to chance to optimize the ordering, you might
> throw away changes that the admin has done on purpose. The same hold
> true for a pg_dump/pg_reload cycle. If none of the fields had their
> storage order changed manually, you'd want to reoder them optimally
> at dump/reload time. If, however, the admin specified an ordering, you'd
> want to preserve that.
>
I don't think users should be monkeying with the storage position at
all. Decisions about that should belong to the engine, not to users.
Providing a user tweakable knob for this strikes me as a large footgun,
as well as requiring all sorts of extra checks along the lines you are
talking of.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | José Orlando Pereira | 2007-02-21 16:26:32 | Re: Proposal: Commit timestamp |
| Previous Message | José Orlando Pereira | 2007-02-21 16:14:35 | Re: Priorities for users or queries? |