Re: pg_depend

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_depend
Date: 2001-07-17 13:55:15
Message-ID: 200107171355.f6HDtFK29545@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > > That was me. The point, however, was, given object id 145928, how the
> > > heck to you know what table this comes from?
> >
> > I think we will need the relid of the system table. I imagine four
> > columns:
> >
> > object relid
> > object oid
> > reference relid
> > references oid
>
> I'm not seeing the point. You're essentially duplicating the information
> that's already available in the system catalogs. This is bound to become
> a catastrophe the minute a user steps in and does manual surgery on some
> catalog. (And yes, manual surgery should still be possible.)

But how then do you find the system table that uses the given oid?
Wasn't that your valid complaint?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-07-17 14:56:10 Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em
Previous Message Dominic J. Eidson 2001-07-17 13:15:57 Re: Odd error...