Andrew Dunstan escribió: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > >I agree with comments here about the multiple orderings being a horrible > >source of bugs, as well as lots of coding even to make it happen at all > >http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-12/msg00859.php > > I thought we were going with this later proposal of Tom's (on which he's > convinced me): > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-12/msg00983.php - if > not I'm totally confused (situation normal). The current thread started > with this sentence: > > >Inspired by this thread [1], and in particular by the idea of storing > >three numbers (permanent ID, on-disk storage position, display > >position) for each column, I spent a little time messing around with a > >prototype implementation of column storage positions to see what kind > >of difference it would make. > > I haven't understood Alvaro to suggest not keeping 3 numbers.
Right, I'm not advocating not doing that -- I'm just saying that the first step to that could be decoupling physical position with attr id :-) Logical column ordering (the order in which SELECT * expands to) seems to me to be a different feature. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
