Peter Geoghegan writes:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 11:47 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Now you do need something that will make the three meanings different
>> in order to test that step. But I'd suggest some bit of throwaway code
>> that just assigns randomly different logical and physical orders.
>
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 11:47 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Now you do need something that will make the three meanings different
> in order to test that step. But I'd suggest some bit of throwaway code
> that just assigns randomly different logical and physical orders.
That seems like a good idea.
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> If you do not provide a column identity number or you use something else
> (e.g. attlognum) to cross-references attributes from other catalogs,
> then you'll have to edit pg_attrdef when a column moves; and any other
> reference to a column number will have to change. Or
On 2022-Jun-28, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 10:53:14AM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > My feeling is that every aspect of user interaction should show
> > columns ordered in logical order.
>
> I'm not entirely sure of what you meant. Assuming tables a(a, z) and b(b, z),
>
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 08:38:56AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 04:32:30PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > psql displays a table columns information using the logical order rather the
> > physical order, and if verbose emits an addition "Physical order" footer if
>
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 04:32:30PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> psql displays a table columns information using the logical order rather the
> physical order, and if verbose emits an addition "Physical order" footer if
> the
> logical layout is different from the physical one.
FYI: the footer
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 09:00:05AM -0400, Isaac Morland wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 05:32, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> > I think that supporting at least a way to specify the logical order during
> > the
> > table creation should be easy to implement (there shouldn't be any
> > question on
On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 05:32, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I think that supporting at least a way to specify the logical order during
> the
> table creation should be easy to implement (there shouldn't be any
> question on whether it needs to invalidate any cache or what lock level to
> use), and
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 10:53:14AM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Jun-28, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> > So, assuming that the current JOIN expansion order shouldn't be
> > changed, I implemented the last approach I mentioned.
>
> Yeah, I'm not sure that this is a good assumption. I
On 2022-Jun-28, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> So, assuming that the current JOIN expansion order shouldn't be
> changed, I implemented the last approach I mentioned.
Yeah, I'm not sure that this is a good assumption. I mean, if logical
order is the order in which users see the table columns, then why
10 matches
Mail list logo
