Neil Conway writes: > (b) Using the above scheme that attnum == attpos initially, there > won't be any gaps in the sequence of attpos values. That means > that if, for example, we want to move the column in position 50 > to position 1, we'll need to change the position's of all the > columns in positions [1..49] (and suffer the resulting MVCC > bloat in pg_attribute). Changing the column order is hardly a > performance critical operation, so that might be acceptable.
I don't think you can speak of "bloat" for pg_attribute. But you can speak of a problem when you want to do the old col = col + 1 in the presence of a unique index. > (c) Do I need to consider inheritance? Inheritance is based on column names, so initially no, but if there is a command to alter the column order, then it should have an ONLY option. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
