| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: logical column ordering |
| Date: | 2015-03-24 20:04:18 |
| Message-ID: | 1417009313.730933.1427227458359.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> +1 for that approach. Much better to break all of the third-party
> code out there definitively than to bet on which attribute people are
> going to want to use most commonly.
+1
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2015-03-24 20:05:27 | Re: Order of enforcement of CHECK constraints? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-03-24 19:56:27 | Re: EvalPlanQual behaves oddly for FDW queries involving system columns |