| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: regdatabase |
| Date: | 2025-05-30 20:55:58 |
| Message-ID: | 2694264.1748638558@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> For now, I've just added another case block for REGDATABASEOID to match the
> others. If there are problems with non-pinned objects being considered
> shippable, it's not really the fault of this patch. Also, from reading
> around [0], I get the idea that "shippability" might just mean that the
> same object _probably_ exists on the remote server. Plus, there seems to
> be very few use-cases for shipping reg* values in the first place. But
> even after reading lots of threads, code, and docs, I'm still not sure I
> fully grasp all the details here.
It's all quite squishy, unfortunately, because shippability is a
heuristic rather than something we can determine with certainty
(at reasonable cost, anyway). But I agree with treating regdatabase
the same as the other reg* types, at least until someone shows up
with a counterexample.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-05-30 20:59:39 | Re: regdatabase |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-05-30 20:19:41 | Re: Large expressions in indexes can't be stored (non-TOASTable) |