Re: Catalogs design question

From: "Steve Howe" <howe(at)carcass(dot)dhs(dot)org>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Catalogs design question
Date: 2001-10-20 08:06:59
Message-ID: 001d01c1593e$318c5790$8430b0c8@angla
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello Bruce!

> Yes, we inherited these arrays from Berkeley and haven't had any need to
> remove them. Are you trying to do things that the other interfaces like
> ODBC and JDBC don't handle?
About the groups: I just want to write a function that will return the users
names belonged by a given group. I understand I can load the arrays in
memory, then sequentially compare the members from pg_shadow, but doing it
goes against the database priciple after all.
About the procs: the Borland's dbExpress specification demands a
input/output list of parameters for stored procedures, and I'm going to use
functions as stored procedures. But I need to make a types list to be able
list what are those params.

> The group array is a hack but the pg_proc array would be hard to replace
> becauseit acts as part of the unique key used for cache lookups.
This design itself bothers me.
We have no other option left ? Like arrays being referenced in relations ?
That's far from perfect, but at least would solve those issues and others
which might appear in other catalogs...

Best Regards,
Steve Howe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oleg Bartunov 2001-10-20 08:26:08 Re: Catalogs design question
Previous Message Steve Howe 2001-10-20 07:55:45 Re: Catalogs design question