Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Gregory Stark
Subject Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
Date
Msg-id 8764c4em4e.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

> Actually, the more I think about it the more I think that 3 numbers
> might be the answer.  99% of the code would use only the permanent ID.

Don't we already have such a permanent number -- just one we don't use
anywhere in the data model? Namely the oid of the pg_attribute entry. It's
actually a bit odd that we don't use it since we use the oid of just about
every other system catalog record as the primary key.


--  Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Load distributed checkpoint patch
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2