| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> |
| Cc: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: REPACK and naming |
| Date: | 2025-09-17 13:09:28 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoaq5zPALxkDXoGaWQpuxbosE0CHAUVg9NkBssjtDjSsfQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 8:04 AM Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> wrote:
> Em ter., 16 de set. de 2025 às 23:01, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> escreveu:
>> I think RETABLE is not a proposal to be taken seriously. That's
>> extremely confusing.
>
> This feature could be used in a future version to rearrange fields in a table, for better padding.
> I don't think we have another one available for this purpose.
>
> CREATE TABLE T(A text, B integer, C bigint, D integer);
>
> We could have something like
> RETABLE T USING(B, D, C, A)
>
> So REPACK isn't the best for this, if this feature would exist some day.
RETABLE just isn't a word. The code sometimes calls this a REWRITE of
a table, which would be reasonable. I suspect, though, that changing
the column order would end up being a form of ALTER TABLE.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniil Davydov | 2025-09-17 13:10:52 | Re: [BUG] Query with postgres fwd deletes more tuples than it should |
| Previous Message | Ranier Vilela | 2025-09-17 13:01:05 | Re: REPACK and naming |