Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 03:10:30PM -0600, Decibel! wrote: >> IIRC the community did come to a consensus on allowing for a >> different logical ordering from physical ordering, it was an issue of >> actually doing the work. If this is an itch you want to scratch, you >> might look into fixing that problem instead.
> Err, as I recall it was decided that the chance for confusion was too > high. > http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org/msg85548.html That message was about an approach that didn't have consensus ;-) The ultimate conclusion was that a three-way split (identity, logical position, physical position) could work because most of the code only cares about column identity; the places where logical or physical positions are important are pretty narrowly circumscribed, or could be made so. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
