Re: logical column ordering

Robert, all,

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> To the extent that I have any concern about the patch at this point,
> it's around stability. I would awfully rather see something like this
> get committed at the beginning of a development cycle than the end.

I tend to agree with this; we have a pretty bad habit of bouncing
around big patches until the end and then committing them. That's not
as bad when the patch has been getting reviews and feedback over a few
months (or years) but this particular patch isn't even code-complete at
this point, aiui.

> It's quite possible that I'm being more nervous than is justified, but
> given that we're *still* fixing bugs related to dropped-column
> handling (cf. 9b35ddce93a2ef336498baa15581b9d10f01db9c from July of
> this year) which was added in July 2002, maybe not.

I'm not quite sure that I see how that's relevant. Bugs will happen,
unfortunately, no matter how much review is done of a given patch. That
isn't to say that we shouldn't do any review, but it's a trade-off.
This change, at least, strikes me as less likely to have subtle bugs
in it as compared to the dropped column case.

Thanks,

Stephen