Hi, On 2021-05-17 17:06:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Putting it just after attalign seems like a reasonably sane choice > from the standpoint of grouping things affecting physical storage; > and as you say, that wins from the standpoint of using up alignment > padding rather than adding more.
Makes sense to me. > Personally I'd think the most consistent order in that area would > be attbyval, attalign, attstorage, attcompression; but perhaps it's > too late to swap the order of attstorage and attalign. Given that we've put in new fields in various positions on a fairly regular basis, I don't think swapping around attalign, attstorage would cause a meaningful amount of additional pain. Personally I don't have a preference for how these are ordered. Greetings, Andres Freund
