On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 12:06:30PM -0500, Phil Currier wrote: > Well, for two reasons: > > 1) If you have a table with one very-frequently-accessed varchar() > column and several not-frequently-accessed int columns, it might > actually make sense to put the varchar column first. The system won't > always be able to make the most intelligent decision about table > layout.
Umm, the point of the exercise is that if you know there are int columns, then you can skip over them, whereas you can never skip over a varchar column. So there isn't really any situation where it would be better to put the varchar first. > > don't see any good way to perform an upgrade between PG versions > without rewriting each table's data. Maybe most people aren't doing > upgrades like this right now, but it seems like it will only become > more common in the future. In my opinion, this is more important than > #1. I don't see this either. For all current tables, the storage position is the attribute number, no exception. You say: > because the version X table could > have dropped columns that might or might not be present in any given > tuple on disk. Whether they're there or not is irrelevent. Drop columns are not necesarily empty, but in any case they occupy a storage position until the table is rewritten. A dump/restore doesn't need to preserve this, but pg_migrator will need some smarts to handle it. The system will need to create a column of the appropriate type and drop it to get to the right state. If you really want to use pg_dump I'd suggest an option to pg_dump --dump-dropped-columns which will include the dropped columns in the CREATE TABLE but drop them immediatly after. It's really more a corner case than anything else. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to > litigate.
Description: Digital signature