On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > FWIW I have no intention to add options for physical/logical ordering > anywhere. All users will see is that tables will follow the same > (logical) order everywhere.
Just to be clear, I wasn't in any way attending to say that the patch had a problem in this area. I was just expressing concern about the apparent rush to judgement on whether converting between physical and logical column ordering would be expensive. I certainly think that's something that we should test - for example, we might want to consider whether there are cases where you could maybe convince the executor to spend a lot of time pointlessly reorganizing tuples in ways that wouldn't happen today. But I have no particular reason to think that any issues we hit there issues won't be solvable. To the extent that I have any concern about the patch at this point, it's around stability. I would awfully rather see something like this get committed at the beginning of a development cycle than the end. It's quite possible that I'm being more nervous than is justified, but given that we're *still* fixing bugs related to dropped-column handling (cf. 9b35ddce93a2ef336498baa15581b9d10f01db9c from July of this year) which was added in July 2002, maybe not. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
