|From:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|To:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|Cc:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, John Naylor <jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: missing toast table for pg_policy|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2018-07-20 08:56:32 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 04:50:06PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2018-07-20 08:46:50 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 07:18:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I have found the argument about circular dependencies rather sensible
> >> FWIW. So at the end it seems to me that we would not want to add toast
> >> tables for those catalogs.
> > As argued a fair bit ago, I think that isn't actually an issue: As long
> > as we keep the boostrap relevant fields from being toasted, there's no
> > issue with circularlity. Given the initial contents are defined to be
> > static or live in relmapper there's no danger of that accidentally
> > happening.
> I still have some doubts about issues hidden behind our backs with a
> knife ready to hit... The patch committed is already a good cut I
> think, and addresses the original complaints from Joe and me.
I disagree fairly strongly. I think that's a half-assed way to address
the concerns raised in this thread. All but guarantees that we'll have
this discussion again.
> >> That could be nice, but separate from the fact of adding a toast table
> >> to it?
> > Yea, that seems mostly independent.
> Please don't tell me that I forgot to bump CATALOG_VERSION_NO, and that
> it needs to be bumped..
You mean I shouldn't say that it needs to because you already know?
Because obviously, yes, that's required and appears to be missing?
|Next Message||Amit Langote||2018-07-20 00:30:34||Re: documentation about explicit locking|
|Previous Message||Michael Paquier||2018-07-19 23:56:32||Re: missing toast table for pg_policy|