Re: Column storage positions

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: "Phil Currier" <pcurrier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Column storage positions
Date: 2007-02-22 18:02:52
Message-ID: E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57901CAF728@m0143.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> > Yes, that was the idea (not oid but some number), and I am arguing
> > against it. Imho people are used to see the logical position in e.g.
> > pg_index
> >
>
> Which people are you talking about? In my commercial PG work
> I hardly ever look at a system table at all, and users
> shouldn't have to IMNSHO.

You are probably right. I tend to resort to commandline tools, schema
dumps and system tables, probably not many other "people" do that. I
often don't get to use my perferred toolset because it is not installed.

> If you mean tools developers, then accomodating to catalog
> changes is par for the course, I should think.

The question is, whether the distributed work needed to get all the
tools and interfaces (like jdbc, odbc, pgadmin) to work again isn't more
work, than doing it in the backend would be.

Since we want plan invalidation anyway, I am not sure the rest is so
much.

Andreas

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2007-02-22 18:03:09 Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: SCMS question
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-02-22 18:02:41 Re: What is CheckPoint.undo needed for?