| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
| Date: | 2006-12-21 16:15:38 |
| Message-ID: | 20099.1166717738@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 10:50:59AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Really? To me that's one of a large number of questions that are
>> unresolved about how we'd do this. You can make a case for either
>> choice in quite a number of places.
> Can we? For anything of any permenence (view definitions, rules,
> compiled functions, plans, etc) you're going to want the physical
> number, for the same reason we store the oids of functions and tables.
Not if we intend to rearrange the physical numbers during column
add/drop to provide better packing.
You could make a case that we need *three* numbers: a permanent column
ID, a display position, and a storage position.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD | 2006-12-21 16:18:02 | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-12-21 16:11:46 | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD | 2006-12-21 16:18:02 | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-12-21 16:11:46 | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |