On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 16:57 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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.
Not disagreed. :-) Something very, very simple seems most likely to be an effective additional feature for 8.3. We can implement the 2/3 position version for 8.4 -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
