From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_depend |
Date: | 2001-07-17 20:03:17 |
Message-ID: | 200107172003.f6HK3Iw05710@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > The alternative to pg_depend is to do a brute force scan of all the
> > system catalogs looking for dependent objects. In that case, you'd
> > know what you are looking at, but if we extract the dependencies as
> > a separate table, I don't see how you'd know without being told.
>
> The former is what I'm advocating.
So you are basically saying you don't like pg_depend. Would you prefer
to use it only in cases we can't encode the dependencies easily in the
system catalogs, like functions that require certain relations?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-17 20:20:15 | Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-07-17 19:58:45 | Re: pg_depend |