From: | Sven Köhler <skoehler(at)upb(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RE : full featured alter table? |
Date: | 2003-06-16 23:22:37 |
Message-ID: | 3EEE513D.9040707@upb.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> You could invent a syntax that supports both use cases, along the
> lines of
>
> ALTER ... POSITION <i> <column1> [ , <column2> ... ]
This idea is great, although the statement
ALTER TABLE <table> POSITION <i> <column>,<column>,...
might make the task to maintain the pg_attribute table more complicated
than the simple statement
ALTER TABLE <table> ALTER COLUMN <column> POSITION <i>
which can be transformed into 2 update-statements i think.
perhaps it would be simpler to define a statement like
ALTER TABLE <table> POSITIONS <column1> <i1>, <column2> <i2>, ...
which just means the following:
ALTER TABLE <table> ALTER COLUMN <oclumn1> POSITION <i1>
ALTER TABLE <table> ALTER COLUMN <oclumn2> POSITION <i2>
we wouldn't have such strong/complicated contraints for each <i>,
because each <i> can be >=1 and <= the column-count.
i don't know what i'd like most, but although your last suggestion looks
great, it makes it hard to estimate what's the result.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-16 23:35:26 | Re: Postgres performance comments from a MySQL user |
Previous Message | Arjen van der Meijden | 2003-06-16 23:03:02 | Re: Postgres performance comments from a MySQL user |