Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: t_self as system column

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: t_self as system column
Date: 2010-07-05 19:26:54
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> At one time I was hoping to get rid of explicit entries in pg_attribute
>> for system columns, which would negate this concern. I think we're
>> stuck with them now, though, because of per-column permissions.

> Because someone might want to grant per-column permissions on those
> columns?  That seems like an awfully thin reason to keep all that
> bloat around.  I bet the number of people who have granted per-column
> permissions on, say, cmax can be counted on one hand - possibly with
> five fingers left over.

I'd agree with that argument for the most part, but I'm not entirely
sure about oid, which has some characteristics of a user-data column.

(OTOH, maybe we could allow just oid to retain an explicit pg_attribute
entry... could be messy though.)

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-07-05 21:57:37
Subject: Re: pessimal trivial-update performance
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-07-05 19:20:53
Subject: Re: t_self as system column

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group