From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Денис Романенко <deromanenko(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: NAMEDATALEN increase because of non-latin languages |
Date: | 2021-08-18 14:53:58 |
Message-ID: | 1429734.1629298438@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:21 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I wonder if we'd get complaints from changing the catalog column layouts
>> that much. People are used to the name at the front, I think. OTOH,
>> I expected a lot of bleating about the OID column becoming frontmost,
>> but there hasn't been much.
> I don't think that would be comparable. Having an extra oid in the
> 1st column doesn't really make a raw SELECT * harder to read. But
> having the XXXname column way behind, and not even at the end, means
> that most people will have to type an extra "xxxname," for each
> throwaway query run to quickly verify something. I know that I often
> do that, and while I could live with it I'd rather not have to do it.
Yeah, it would annoy the heck out of me too. Again there's a potential
technical solution, which is to decouple the user-visible column order
from the storage order. However, multiple people have tilted at that
windmill without much success, so making it a prerequisite for improving
the name-length situation doesn't seem like a smart plan.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jelte Fennema | 2021-08-18 15:00:59 | Don't clean up LLVM state when exiting in a bad way |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-08-18 14:47:24 | Re: replay of CREATE TABLESPACE eats data at wal_level=minimal |