| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch by request at pgcon |
| Date: | 2011-05-19 17:49:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20110519174933.GM4548@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com) wrote:
> Excerpts from Greg Stark's message of jue may 19 12:11:29 -0400 2011:
> > Adding such a feature would be pretty trivial, attached is a patch.
>
> Interesting, but not so trivial I think -- I mean if you're doing this I
> think you should add a column with the nominal position of the column in
> the table, so that it enables you to find it quickly in the other sort
> order.
Afraid that I have to disagree.. The attnum (or, really, worse, since
you'd have to actually count/number the non-dropped columns only..)
doesn't strike me as being useful to the user for much of anything,
especially since we don't have the number anywhere in the default
listing.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-05-19 17:50:29 | Re: LOCK DATABASE |
| Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2011-05-19 17:49:11 | Re: LOCK DATABASE |