From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Simple Column reordering |
Date: | 2007-02-23 02:49:56 |
Message-ID: | 20070223024956.GF7744@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > I propose that at CREATE TABLE time, the column ordering is re-ordered
> > so that the table columns are packed more efficiently. This would be a
> > physical re-ordering, so that SELECT * and COPY without explicit column
> > definitions would differ from the original CREATE TABLE statement.
> >
> > This would be an optional feature, off by default, controlled by a
> > USERSET GUC
> > optimize_column_order = off (default) | on
>
> Umm, you want a GUC setting to enable standards-breaking behaviour and
> that will be obsolete when we do column ordering right, which is not
> likely to be more than one release away, and could even still happen in
> this coming release?
Given that we already seem to have a patch implementing a complete
solution, or part thereof, this would seem a rather shortsighted
proposal. Why not develop the whole thing and be done with it?
I don't understand the reluctance to implementing all of it. The most
serious objection I've seen, from Andreas IIRC, is that it would make
drivers' lives more difficult; but really, drivers have to cope with
dropped columns today which is a pain, and ISTM this proposal (not this
one here, but the three-column proposal) would make that a bit simpler.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Warren Turkal | 2007-02-23 03:22:15 | Re: SCMS question |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-02-23 02:07:45 | Re: Simple Column reordering |