From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, hernan gonzalez <hgonzalez(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Column reordering in pg_dump |
Date: | 2008-11-26 00:30:34 |
Message-ID: | 23035.1227659434@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 03:10:30PM -0600, Decibel! wrote:
>> IIRC the community did come to a consensus on allowing for a
>> different logical ordering from physical ordering, it was an issue of
>> actually doing the work. If this is an itch you want to scratch, you
>> might look into fixing that problem instead.
> Err, as I recall it was decided that the chance for confusion was too
> high.
> http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org/msg85548.html
That message was about an approach that didn't have consensus ;-)
The ultimate conclusion was that a three-way split (identity, logical
position, physical position) could work because most of the code only
cares about column identity; the places where logical or physical
positions are important are pretty narrowly circumscribed, or could
be made so.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-11-26 00:44:27 | Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-11-26 00:00:45 | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1197) |