| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ernest E Vogelsinger <ernest(at)vogelsinger(dot)at>, "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk>, Sven Köhler <skoehler(at)upb(dot)de>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: full featured alter table? |
| Date: | 2003-06-15 17:25:19 |
| Message-ID: | 23492.1055697919@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> writes:
> The proposal does beg the question:
> Why would a default tuple-attribute order be stored in the database
> but not relation-tuple order?
A good argument in terms of pure relational-calculus theory ... but
we're dealing with SQL here, not relational calculus. The SQL spec
explicitly states that column ordering is significant while row ordering
is not.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-15 18:01:44 | Re: Unknown kind of return type specified for function |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-15 17:22:46 | Re: full featured alter table? |