Martijn van Oosterhout <> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 10:50:59AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Really?  To me that's one of a large number of questions that are
>> unresolved about how we'd do this.  You can make a case for either
>> choice in quite a number of places.

> Can we? For anything of any permenence (view definitions, rules,
> compiled functions, plans, etc) you're going to want the physical
> number, for the same reason we store the oids of functions and tables.

Not if we intend to rearrange the physical numbers during column
add/drop to provide better packing.

You could make a case that we need *three* numbers: a permanent column
ID, a display position, and a storage position.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to