| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kris Jurka" <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Phil Currier" <pcurrier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Column storage positions |
| Date: | 2007-02-22 18:23:39 |
| Message-ID: | E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57901CAF72A@m0143.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > And I also see a lot of unhappiness from users of system tables when
> > column numbers all over the system tables would not be logical
column
> > positions any more.
>
> Right now the fact that attnum presents the logical order but
> not the logical position is a problem for the JDBC driver.
> In the presence of dropped columns there is no easy way to
> get from a pg_attribute entry to logical position. I would
> hope that a new logical position column would reflect the
> actual position and solve this problem.
I agree, I haven't thought of drop column :-( Drop column should have
relabeled attnum.
Since it was not done then, my comments are probably moot.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-02-22 18:47:23 | Re: Column storage positions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-22 18:23:20 | Re: What is CheckPoint.undo needed for? |