Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k5zwK-0003Jv-Aa for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 23:13:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k5zwJ-0008JG-6Y for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 23:13:47 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k5zwI-0008IS-WE for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 23:13:47 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k5zwC-0007wQ-Li for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 23:13:46 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 07CNDaDV326463; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 19:13:36 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Andres Freund cc: Alvaro Herrera , pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Dependencies for partitioned indexes are still a mess In-reply-to: <20200812223853.d45ddez273cqaf4u@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <3170626.1594842723@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20200812221313.zfqsfcpt2tmkv4la@alap3.anarazel.de> <324385.1597271356@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20200812223853.d45ddez273cqaf4u@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund message dated "Wed, 12 Aug 2020 15:38:53 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <326461.1597274016.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 19:13:36 -0400 Message-ID: <326462.1597274016@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Andres Freund writes: > Given that pg_dump already re-orders the columns for DDL, could we make > it apply that re-ordering not just during the CREATE TABLE, but also > when dumping the table contents? Hm, possibly. I think when this was last looked at, we didn't have any way to get COPY to output the columns in non-physical order, but now we do. regards, tom lane