Re: missing toast table for pg_policy

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 07:18:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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 ...

I have found the argument about circular dependencies rather sensible
FWIW. So at the end it seems to me that we would not want to add toast
tables for those catalogs.

>> 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.

That could be nice, but separate from the fact of adding a toast table
to it?
--
Michael