On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: >> I have a strong suspicion that's going to be a, ahem, challenging >> project. But it would be great to have. Getting rid of the system >> column entries from pg_attribute is probably easy by comparison. > > It will be a bit invasive, but I'm not so sure that it's difficult, just a > mass of details to take care of. Like you I'd be very glad to see it done.
I guess we'll find out...! >> When we discussed this previously, Tom suggested that we might want to >> have a three-tiered structure: (1) permanent identifier (never >> changes, used by other system catalogs to reference the attribute in >> question), (2) display position, and (3) physical storage position. >> I'm not sure if it's feasible to think about splitting out (2) and (3) >> in a single patch, but either one would be useful by itself. Which >> are you planning to work on? > > Why wouldn't it be feasible? Just because it might be too much to do all at once. > 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. -- 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
