Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Jan Wieck wrote:
> >> When was char() fixed size?
>
> > char() was fixed size only in that you could cache the column offsets
> > for char() becuase it was always the same width on disk before TOAST.
>
> But that was already broken
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> When was char() fixed size?
> char() was fixed size only in that you could cache the column offsets
> for char() becuase it was always the same width on disk before TOAST.
But that was already broken by MULTIBYTE.
Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Alessio Bragadini wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 11:37, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > >
> > > > I cannot think of any reason why changing column order should be
> > > > implemented in Postgres. Seems like a waste of time/more code bloat for
> > > > so
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Alessio Bragadini wrote:
> > On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 11:37, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> >
> > > I cannot think of any reason why changing column order should be
> > > implemented in Postgres. Seems like a waste of time/more code bloat for
> > > something which is strictly astheti
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 11:04:07AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Alessio Bragadini wrote:
> > On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 11:37, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> >
> > > I cannot think of any reason why changing column order should be
> > > implemented in Postgres. Seems like a waste of time/more code bloat for
>
Alessio Bragadini wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 11:37, Gavin Sherry wrote:
>
> > I cannot think of any reason why changing column order should be
> > implemented in Postgres. Seems like a waste of time/more code bloat for
> > something which is strictly asthetic.
> >
> > Regardless, I do have c
On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 11:37, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> I cannot think of any reason why changing column order should be
> implemented in Postgres. Seems like a waste of time/more code bloat for
> something which is strictly asthetic.
>
> Regardless, I do have collegues/clients who ask when such a fe
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 12:43:37 +0300,
Antti Haapala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I cannot think of any reason why changing column order should be
> > implemented in Postgres. Seems like a waste of time/more code bloat for
> > something which is strictly asthetic.
>
> What about copy? AFAI
On 12 Oct 2002 at 2:54, Jeff Davis wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the order the attributes are returned makes no
> difference in a client application, unless you're referencing attributes by
> number. All applications that I've made or seen all use the name instead, and
> I've never heard other
> >
> > Did attlognum's (for changing column order) get implemented for 7.2 ?
>
> I cannot think of any reason why changing column order should be
> implemented in Postgres. Seems like a waste of time/more code bloat for
> something which is strictly asthetic.
>
> Regardless, I do have collegues/cl
> I cannot think of any reason why changing column order should be
> implemented in Postgres. Seems like a waste of time/more code bloat for
> something which is strictly asthetic.
What about copy? AFAIK, copy doesn't allow column names being specified,
so it's not purely aesthetic...
-
11 matches
Mail list logo
