Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> 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?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
