Re: logical column ordering

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Phil Currier <pcurrier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: logical column ordering
Date: 2015-03-12 19:44:50
Message-ID: 5501ECB2.10406@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3/12/15 10:07 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I actually wonder if it'd not make more sense to define it as the
> physical column number. That'd reduce the invasiveness and risk of the
> patch considerably.

Clearly, the number of places where attnum has to be changed to
something else is not zero, and so it doesn't matter if a lot or a few
have to be changed. They all have to be looked at and considered.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2015-03-12 19:45:25 Re: logical column ordering
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2015-03-12 19:43:51 Re: pg_rewind in contrib