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 16:01:22 |
Message-ID: | 200107171601.f6HG1M608919@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > > 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?
>
> It's implied by the column you're looking at.
Is it? Are we going to record dependency both ways, e.g primary table
-> foreign table and foreign table -> primary table, or just one of
them. And when we see we depend on something, do we know always what it
could be. If I drop a table and I depend on oid XXX, do I know if that
is a type, function, or serial sequence?
--
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | will trillich | 2001-07-17 16:11:56 | psql -l |
Previous Message | Karel Zak | 2001-07-17 15:52:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Translators wanted |