From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: add columns created and altered to pg_proc and pg_class |
Date: | 2009-04-14 14:27:36 |
Message-ID: | 49E45708.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I though about it too. But I am not sure, if this isn't too
> complicated solution for simple task. If I thing little bit more -
> main important is timestamp of last change.
Yeah, if it would be too heavy to add a timestamp column or two to
pg_class and maybe one or two others, why is it better to add a whole
new table to maintain in parallel -- with it's own primary key,
foreign keys (or similar integrity enforcement mechanism), etc.
Others apparently see a bigger advantage to this than I, but if it's
not something I can just eyeball while I'm looking at the object
definition, it isn't likely to save me much over going to other
sources.
Let's not over-engineer this.
-Kevin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-14 14:32:00 | Re: Unicode string literals versus the world |
Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2009-04-14 14:13:00 | Re: Unicode string literals versus the world |