| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Phil Currier <pcurrier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Column storage positions |
| Date: | 2007-02-21 19:35:44 |
| Message-ID: | 45DC9F10.20509@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> I agree with comments here about the multiple orderings being a horrible
> source of bugs, as well as lots of coding even to make it happen at all
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-12/msg00859.php
>
>
I thought we were going with this later proposal of Tom's (on which he's
convinced me):
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-12/msg00983.php - if
not I'm totally confused (situation normal). The current thread started
with this sentence:
> Inspired by this thread [1], and in particular by the idea of storing
> three numbers (permanent ID, on-disk storage position, display
> position) for each column, I spent a little time messing around with a
> prototype implementation of column storage positions to see what kind
> of difference it would make.
I haven't understood Alvaro to suggest not keeping 3 numbers.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-02-21 19:53:55 | Re: Column storage positions |
| Previous Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-02-21 19:33:10 | Re: Column storage positions |