Tom Lane wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> >>>> P.S. I've noticed that get_rte_attribute_name() seems to
> >>>> break my implementation. I'm not sure if I could solve it.
> >>
> >> That would be a problem --- rule dumping depends on that code to
> >> produce correct aliases, so making it work is not optional.
>
> > Your change has no problem if logical==physical attribute
> > numbers.
>
> But if they're not, what do we do? Can we define the order of the
> alias-name lists as being one or the other numbering? (Offhand I'd
> say it should be logical numbering, but I haven't chased the details.)
> If neither of those work, we'll need some more complex datastructure
> than a simple list.
>
I'm not sure if we could keep invariant attribute numbers.
Though I've used physical attribute numbers as many as possible
in my trial implementation,there's already an exception.
I had to use logical attribute numbers for FieldSelect node.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
