| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> | 
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: move column defaults into pg_attribute along with attacl | 
| Date: | 2008-09-22 02:14:51 | 
| Message-ID: | 22683.1222049691@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> Honestly, I really disliked the code which assumed pg_attribute had no
> NULLable/toastable columns and used what seemed like pretty gruesome
> hacks to create pg_attribute structures.
Agreed, but that seems orthogonal to the point here, which is that a
column's default expression is a distinct object for dependency purposes
and so it needs its own ID.  An OID in the pg_attrdef catalog works
nicely for that; the alternatives I've thought of seem like kluges.
> If we were to accept the pg_attrdef approach, why aren't we
> doing a pg_attracl table instead of adding a column to pg_attribute?
That's actually not an unreasonable question.  If you were to do that
then you could attach OIDs to the attribute ACLs, which might be a nicer
representation in pg_shdepend than you were thinking of using.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2008-09-22 02:26:26 | Re: [patch] fix dblink security hole | 
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2008-09-22 02:07:27 | Re: Proposal: move column defaults into pg_attribute along with attacl |