Re: pg_am.amowner

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_am.amowner
Date: 2000-06-01 00:01:50
Message-ID: 200006010001.UAA05435@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> It seems that access methods nominally have an "owner", but that owner is
> nowhere else referenced. Since there is no user interface for adding
> access methods anyway, would there be any problems with removing that
> field?

I can't think of a reason not to remove it.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-06-01 00:04:08 Re: PgAccess - small bug?
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2000-05-31 23:51:42 pg_am.amowner