On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar jul 06 17:24:21 -0400 2010: >> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > >> > In any case, having a mutable logical column >> > position is the feature that's been most requested. >> >> I think that's true. But the physical storage position would give us >> a performance benefit, by allowing us to try to avoid useless >> alignment padding. > > That's true too. I intend to look at both problems simultaneously, i.e. > decoupling the current attnum in three columns as previously discussed; > as Tom says, I think it'll end up being less work than attacking them > separately. However, I will not attempt to include optimizations such > as avoiding padding, in the first patch, just the possibility that it is > added later.
Sounds great. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
