Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Martijn van Oosterhout
Subject Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
Date
Msg-id 20061221153703.GD14992@svana.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 10:27:12AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >Um, surely you meant "offset the physical numbers". Imho the logical
> >numbers
> >need to stay 1-n, because those numbers are used way more often and are
> >more user visible than the physical.
> >
> >
> >
>
> I don't think we should expose the offset to user view at all - this is
> just for internal use, no?

The thing is, physical index numbers has meaning, the logical index
number does not. In a view definition we're going to store the physical
index, not the logical one, for example. We don't want rearranging
columns to invalidate view definitions or plans.

The number of places needing the logical index are not that man,
relativelyy, and given it has no intrinsic meaning, it's better to give
it a numeric value which is obviously abritrary (like 10001).

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog@svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: ERROR: tuple concurrently updated
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: New version of money type