On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> FWIW I have no intention to add options for physical/logical ordering
> anywhere. All users will see is that tables will follow the same
> (logical) order everywhere.
Just to be clear, I wasn't in any way attending to say that the patch
had a problem in this area. I was just expressing concern about the
apparent rush to judgement on whether converting between physical and
logical column ordering would be expensive. I certainly think that's
something that we should test - for example, we might want to consider
whether there are cases where you could maybe convince the executor to
spend a lot of time pointlessly reorganizing tuples in ways that
wouldn't happen today. But I have no particular reason to think that
any issues we hit there issues won't be solvable.
To the extent that I have any concern about the patch at this point,
it's around stability. I would awfully rather see something like this
get committed at the beginning of a development cycle than the end.
It's quite possible that I'm being more nervous than is justified, but
given that we're *still* fixing bugs related to dropped-column
handling (cf. 9b35ddce93a2ef336498baa15581b9d10f01db9c from July of
this year) which was added in July 2002, maybe not.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
