From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, "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: | 2008-09-23 14:07:16 |
Message-ID: | 27907.1222178836@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
>> Huh? Maybe I missed something, but I didn't think that was suggested
>> anywhere.
> I had suggested a single table, with an OID, which would house anything
> that needed a seperate OID for columns (defaults and ACLs currently) in
> 20080922024129(dot)GD16005(at)tamriel(dot)snowman(dot)net(dot)
[ squint... ] But the default needs its *own* OID, because it is a
distinct entity for dependency purposes. I think you're just confusing
two separate issues there. If we did drop the "object/subobject" model
and just give attributes their own OIDs, we'd still need to give a
separate OID to each default; but ACLs wouldn't have their own OIDs.
The DROP issue I was complaining about could certainly be solved with
some uglification of the dependency-chasing code, so as far as the
backend is concerned it might be about a wash. But there is enough
client-side code out there that roots around in pg_depend for
information we don't store any other way that I'm pretty hesitant to
change the pg_depend representation now. I think adding a subobject
column to pg_shdepend is probably the best answer --- we only didn't
do that to start with because we thought it wasn't needed.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-09-23 14:38:40 | Re: Initial prefetch performance testing |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-23 13:56:33 | Re: pg_type.h regression? |