On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:24:38AM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 3/3/15 11:23 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 01:55:44PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > >>On 02/26/2015 01:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >>>This patch decouples these three things so that they > >>>can changed freely -- but provides no user interface to do so. I think > >>>that trying to only decouple the thing we currently have in two pieces, > >>>and then have a subsequent patch to decouple again, is additional > >>>conceptual complexity for no gain. > >> > >>Oh, I didn't realize there weren't commands to change the LCO. Without > >>at least SQL syntax for LCO, I don't see why we'd take it; this sounds > >>more like a WIP patch. > > > >FYI, pg_upgrade is going to need pg_dump --binary-upgrade to output the > >columns in physical order with some logical ordering information, i.e. > >pg_upgrade cannot be passed only logical ordering from pg_dump. > > Wouldn't it need attno info too, so all 3 orderings?
Uh, what is the third ordering? Physical, logical, and ? It already gets information about dropped columns, if that is the third one. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
