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
