From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: How about to have relnamespace and relrole? |
Date: | 2015-03-02 21:42:35 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoam8N36umvTYQVE6R8THkMANVAaSCRDYpgMDXm4rSMPyw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Two reasons this isn't terribly compelling are (1) it's creating a
> join in a place where the planner can't possibly see it and optimize
> it, and (2) you risk MVCC anomalies because the reg* output routines
> would not be using the same snapshot as the calling query.
>
> We already have problem (2) with the existing reg* functions so I'm
> not that excited about doubling down on the concept.
I think I agree. I mean, I agree that this notation is more
convenient, but I don't really want to add a whole new slough of types
--- these will certainly not be the only ones we want once we go down
this path --- to the default install just for notational convenience.
It's arguable, of course, but I guess I'm going to vote against this
patch.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-03-02 21:45:28 | Re: autogenerated column names + views are a dump hazard |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-03-02 21:32:53 | Re: autogenerated column names + views are a dump hazard |