From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: logical column ordering |
Date: | 2015-03-12 14:15:12 |
Message-ID: | 11289.1426169712@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> 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.
Hm. I'm on board with renaming like that inside the backend, but
I'm very much less excited about forcibly breaking client queries.
I think there is little if any client-side code that will care about
either attidnum or attphysnum, so forcing people to think about it
will just create make-work.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-03-12 14:46:18 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-03-12 14:14:48 | Re: pg_dump: CREATE TABLE + CREATE RULE vs. relreplident |