Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: t_self as system column

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: t_self as system column
Date: 2010-07-05 19:20:53
Message-ID: AANLkTik9mPTnAHa1L-ZALT4IWkqUV6fGMxDerDlxUN0A@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
>> Is there a reason we don't have t_self as one of the system columns that
>> you can examine from SQL?  I'd propose its addition otherwise.
>
> pg_attribute bloat?  I'm a bit hesitant to add a row per table for
> something we've gotten along without for so long, especially something
> with as bizarre a definition as "t_self" has got.
>
> At one time I was hoping to get rid of explicit entries in pg_attribute
> for system columns, which would negate this concern.  I think we're
> stuck with them now, though, because of per-column permissions.

Because someone might want to grant per-column permissions on those
columns?  That seems like an awfully thin reason to keep all that
bloat around.  I bet the number of people who have granted per-column
permissions on, say, cmax can be counted on one hand - possibly with
five fingers left over.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-07-05 19:26:54
Subject: Re: t_self as system column
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2010-07-05 19:14:45
Subject: Re: logistics for beta3

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group