Re: Shared dependency patch

Alvaro, did you update your patch to address the concerns mentioned below?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> > I have updated this patch to the current CVS HEAD. If somebody would be
> > so kind to review this for applying at his earliest convenience, I'd
> > appreciate it.
>
> It's not really ready to apply yet, because it's a bit schizophrenic
> about the users-vs-groups business. You are treating groups as a
> distinct object class in shdependUpdateAclInfo, but I don't see an
> OCLASS_GROUP ... isn't this going to fail as soon as someone tries
> to display a dependency on a group? But I'm not sure it's worth
> going to the trouble of fixing, seeing that we intend to remove
> groups soon in favor of roles.
>
> Also, you seem to have decided that we don't need dependency types
> for shared dependencies, which I think is a bad idea. In particular
> we should have at least DEPENDENCY_PIN, whereupon we can pin the
> original superuser, whereupon most of the initdb-time dependencies you
> are currently installing needn't exist at all. That's not just a space
> savings but a considerable time savings during searches. (Imagine
> how much slower the regular dependency stuff would be if we hadn't
> invented DEPENDENCY_PIN and therefore had to explicitly record all
> dependencies on every system object.) I'm also unconvinced that
> we would never find a use for DEPENDENCY_AUTO or DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL.
>
> I'm inclined to think it would be best to put this on the back burner
> until after the pg_role catalog changes are finished. Otherwise
> you'll have to do a fair amount of ultimately-useless work to make
> the group handling realistic.
>
> As far as OCLASS_AM goes, wouldn't it be simpler just to remove the
> owner column from pg_am? I can't imagine that there will ever be
> runtime commands to add and remove index access methods, much less such
> commands that are allowed to non-superusers. So the notion of an owner
> for an index AM seems like dead weight. (Compare the lack of an owner
> for languages.) I didn't have a problem with carrying a useless column,
> but adding infrastructure to support a useless column is a bit much.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073