On Mon, 2025-02-24 at 13:47 -0500, Corey Huinker wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be any way around it, but it will
> slightly complicate the dump-ing side of things, in that we need to
> either:
>
> a) switch to attnums for index expressions and keep attname calls for
> everything else.
The only stats for indexes are on expression columns, so AFAICT there's
no difference between the above description and "use attnums for
indexes and attnames for tables". Either way, I agree that's the way to
go.
We certainly want attnames for tables to keep it working reasonably
well for cases where the user might be doing something more interesting
than a binary upgrade, as you point out. But attribute numbers for
indexes seem much more reliable: an index with a different attribute
order is a fundamentally different index.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
