Hi,
On 2021-05-17 17:06:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Putting it just after attalign seems like a reasonably sane choice
> from the standpoint of grouping things affecting physical storage;
> and as you say, that wins from the standpoint of using up alignment
> padding rather than adding more.
Makes sense to me.
> Personally I'd think the most consistent order in that area would
> be attbyval, attalign, attstorage, attcompression; but perhaps it's
> too late to swap the order of attstorage and attalign.
Given that we've put in new fields in various positions on a fairly
regular basis, I don't think swapping around attalign, attstorage would
cause a meaningful amount of additional pain. Personally I don't have a
preference for how these are ordered.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
