Simon Riggs wrote:


I agree with comments here about the multiple orderings being a horrible
source of bugs, as well as lots of coding even to make it happen at all
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-12/msg00859.php


I thought we were going with this later proposal of Tom's (on which he's convinced me): http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-12/msg00983.php - if not I'm totally confused (situation normal). The current thread started with this sentence:

Inspired by this thread [1], and in particular by the idea of storing
three numbers (permanent ID, on-disk storage position, display
position) for each column, I spent a little time messing around with a
prototype implementation of column storage positions to see what kind
of difference it would make.

I haven't understood Alvaro to suggest not keeping 3 numbers.

cheers



andrew

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

               http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Reply via email to