| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "Robert Treat" <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
| Date: | 2006-12-22 09:25:08 |
| Message-ID: | E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57901A34F65@m0143.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> >> You could make a case that we need *three* numbers: a permanent
column
> >> ID, a display position, and a storage position.
>
> > Could this not be handled by some catalog fixup after an add/drop?
If we
> > get the having 3 numbers you will almost have me convinced that this
> > might be too complicated after all.
>
> Actually, the more I think about it the more I think that 3 numbers
> might be the answer. 99% of the code would use only the permanent ID.
I am still of the opinion, that the system tables as such are too
visible
to users and addon developers as to change the meaning of attnum.
And I don't quite see what the point is. To alter a table's column you
need
an exclusive lock, and plan invalidation (or are you intending to
invalidate only
plans that reference * ?). Once there you can just as well fix the
numbering.
Yes, it is more work :-(
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Takayuki Tsunakawa | 2006-12-22 09:38:49 | Re: Load distributed checkpoint |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2006-12-22 09:10:15 | Re: configure problem --with-libxml |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Takayuki Tsunakawa | 2006-12-22 09:38:49 | Re: Load distributed checkpoint |
| Previous Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2006-12-22 09:09:33 | Re: Load distributed checkpoint |