Re: Smaller data types use same disk space - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Smaller data types use same disk space
Date
Msg-id 6165.1343257934@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Smaller data types use same disk space  (Mike Christensen <mike@kitchenpc.com>)
Responses Re: Smaller data types use same disk space  (Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au>)
Re: Smaller data types use same disk space  (Mike Christensen <mike@kitchenpc.com>)
List pgsql-general
Mike Christensen <mike@kitchenpc.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah, this has been discussed multiple times.  The sticking point is
>> the extra infrastructure needed to have a physical column numbering
>> different from the user-visible numbering, and the 100% certainty of
>> introducing a lot of bugs due to bits of code using one type of column
>> number where they should have used the other.  We'll probably get it
>> done someday, but don't hold your breath ...

> Has there been any discussion of providing the ability to re-order
> table columns through an ALTER TABLE command?

It's more or less the same discussion.  To do either one you need to
decouple the internal column order from what the user sees.  I do not
think we'd bother with building the infrastructure involved if the
only application were squeezing out alignment padding; it's really
the (constant) requests for some kind of "ALTER TABLE REORDER COLUMNS"
feature that make it worth thinking about.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Full text search ts_heading strange result
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: Smaller data types use same disk space