Re: How about to have relnamespace and relrole?

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 04/01/2015 12:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>>> The only possible issue I see on reading the patches is that these are
>>> treated differently for dependencies than other regFOO types. Rather
>>> than create a dependency if a value is used in a default expression, an
>>> error is raised if one is found. Are we OK with that?

>> Why would it be a good idea to act differently from the others?

> I have no idea.

> It was mentioned here
> <http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150218.174231.125293096.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> but nobody seems to have commented. I'm not sure why it was done like
> this. Adding the dependencies seems to be no harder than raising the
> exception. I think we can kick this back to the author to fix.

After a bit more thought it occurred to me that a dependency on a role
would need to be a shared dependency, and the existing infrastructure
for recordDependencyOnExpr() wouldn't support that.

I'm not sure that it's worth adding the complexity to allow shared
dependencies along with normal ones there. This might be a reason
to reject the regrole part of the patch, as requiring more complexity
than it's worth.

But in any case I cannot see a reason to treat regnamespace differently
from the existing types on this point.

regards, tom lane