| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, John Naylor <jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: missing toast table for pg_policy |
| Date: | 2018-07-19 23:18:32 |
| Message-ID: | 1400.1532042312@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> FWIW, I was off the last few days. I personally think the reasoning to
> leave out pg_class, pg_index etc. is bad. We should just make them work
> and create toast tables as well.
If it's easy to make those work and keep them working, then sure, but
I have my doubts. I remain afraid of circular accesses occurring only
in strange corner cases ...
> It's definitely not right that "those
> relations have no reason to use a toast table anyway." as the commit
> message states, given relacl, reloptions and relpartbound.
I wonder whether we shouldn't have handled ACLs through something more
like the pg_description solution, ie keep them all in one catalog with
a (classoid, objoid) primary key.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-07-19 23:46:50 | Re: missing toast table for pg_policy |
| Previous Message | Jeremy Schneider | 2018-07-19 23:17:44 | Fwd: BUG #15182: Canceling authentication due to timeout aka Denial of Service Attack |