On 02/27/2015 12:25 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 27.2.2015 21:09, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Tomas,
>>
>> So for an API, 100% of the use cases I have for this feature would be
>> satisfied by:
>>
>> ALTER TABLE ______ ALTER COLUMN _____ SET ORDER #
>>
>> and:
>>
>> ALTER TABLE _____ ADD COLUMN colname coltype ORDER #
>
> Yes, I imagined an interface like that. Just to be clear, you're talking
> about logical order (and not a physical one), right?
Correct. The only reason to rearrange the physical columns is in order
to optimize, which presumably would be carried out by a utility command,
e.g. VACUUM FULL OPTIMIZE.
> If we ignore the system columns, the current implementation assumes that
> the values in each of the three columns (attnum, attlognum and
> attphysnum) are distinct and within 1..natts. So there are no gaps and
> you'll always set the value to an existing one (so yes, shuffling is
> necessary).
>
> And yes, that certainly requires an exclusive lock on the pg_attribute
> (I don't think we need a lock on the table itself).
If MVCC on pg_attribute is good enough to not lock against concurrent
"SELECT *", then that would be lovely.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
