| From: | Bryn Llewellyn <bryn(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane PostgreSQL <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, pgsql-general list <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Two questions about "pg_constraint" |
| Date: | 2022-08-27 17:57:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAAB2CE0-F545-4C87-9466-B499A97378DC@yugabyte.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
That's the answer I was seeking. So it's case closed for both of my « Two questions about "pg_constraint" ». Thanks, Tom. And thanks to the others who've contributed to this thread.
tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us wrote:
> bryn(at)yugabyte(dot)com writes:
>
> My other question was about the "connamespace" column. It seemed to me, both at first and still now, that this is a clear instance of a transitive dependency.
I think a more productive way to think about it is that it's denormalization for efficiency; specifically to let constraints be looked up by name+namespace without having to get other catalogs involved. (SET CONSTRAINTS is one thing that requires that, and I think there are others.)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ajin Cherian | 2022-08-29 06:14:57 | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-08-27 02:19:07 | Re: Two questions about "pg_constraint" |