Re: logical column ordering

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> However, there's a difference between making a query silently given
> different results, and breaking it completely forcing the user to
> re-study how to write it. I think the latter is better. In that light
> we should just drop attnum as a column name, and use something else:
> maybe (attidnum, attlognum, attphysnum). So all queries in the wild
> would be forced to be updated, but we would not silently change
> semantics instead.

+1 for that approach. Much better to break all of the third-party
code out there definitively than to bet on which attribute people are
going to want to use most commonly.

I'm a little confused as to the status of this patch. It's marked as
Waiting on Author in the CommitFest application, and the last patch
version was posted in December. The fact that the new CommitFest
application encourages people to blindly move things to the next CF
instead of forcing patch authors to reopen the record when they update
the patch is, IMHO, not good. It's just going to lead to the CF
application filling up with things that the authors aren't really
working on. We've got enough work to do with the patches that are
actually under active development.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company