| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... SET DISTINCT |
| Date: | 2009-05-05 16:13:15 |
| Message-ID: | 18639.1241539995@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> A question: why does attdistinct become entry #5 instead of going at the end?
>> I assume it's because the order here controls the column order, and it makes
>> sense to have attdistinct next to attstattarget, since they're related. Is
>> that right? Thanks in advance...
> Yep, that was my thought.
We generally want fixed-size columns before variable-size ones, to ease
accessing them from C code. So it shouldn't go at the end in any case.
Beyond that it's mostly aesthetics, with maybe some thought for avoiding
unnecessary alignment padding.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-05-05 16:16:32 | Re: ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... SET DISTINCT |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-05-05 16:08:24 | Re: ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... SET DISTINCT |