Re: pg_depend

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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