Re: pg_am.amowner

> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > It seems that access methods nominally have an "owner", but that owner is
> > nowhere else referenced. Since there is no user interface for adding
> > access methods anyway, would there be any problems with removing that
> > field?
>
> Hmm ... offhand I'm having a hard time seeing that it would make sense
> to associate protection checks with an access method. The only use
> I can see for the owner field is to control who could delete an access
> method --- and I don't have much problem with saying "only the
> superuser". It's even harder to believe that we'd really want non-
> superusers installing access methods.
>
> But the other side of the coin is what harm is it doing? Surely you're
> not worried about the space occupied by the column ;-)

Seems our system catalogs are confusing enough. Any trimming is
helpful, no?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026