Tom Lane wrote:
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.
Could this not be handled by some catalog fixup after an add/drop? If we
get the having 3 numbers you will almost have me convinced that this
might be too complicated after all.
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
