| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joel Jacobson" <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add primary keys to system catalogs |
| Date: | 2021-01-22 15:42:33 |
| Message-ID: | 1154909.1611330153@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Joel Jacobson" <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> writes:
> I ran this query (on a patched database) to see if there are still any catalog tables without primary keys:
> ...
> pg_depend
> pg_shdepend
Yeah, this is noted in the patch's own regression tests.
> Wouldn't it be possible to add primary keys to these two as well?
Neither of the existing indexes is suitable, not being unique.
We could imagine adding a unique index across the whole column set,
but that would be an awfully large price to pay for neatnik-ism.
Also, at least for pg_depend (less sure about pg_shdepend), some code
cleanup would be required, because I don't think that we try very
hard to avoid making duplicate dependency entries. On the whole
I feel this'd be counterproductive.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-01-22 15:52:54 | Re: CTAS command tags |
| Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2021-01-22 15:40:49 | Re: CTAS command tags |