From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org >> PG-General Mailing List" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Restore relhaspkey in PostgreSQL Version 11 Beta |
Date: | 2018-07-30 22:21:36 |
Message-ID: | 20180730222136.gyqu4gkp6zfpoaph@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi,
On 2018-07-30 17:21:25 -0400, Melvin Davidson wrote:
> * >it has never been the case that relhaspkey meant that the table
> *currently* has a primary key. *
> *Hmmm, I guess it's a lot harder to fix "squishy semantics"from "True
> if the table has (or once had) a primary key" to "True if the table has
> a primary key after vacuum"rather than just dropping a column that has
> existed from version 7.2.So now I guess the policy is break code instead of
> fix documention.That meakes sense...NOT!*
A large portion of the system catalogs (i.e. objects within
pg_catalog.*) are essentially internal implementation details and we'll
change them if it makes our live easier. If you want stability use
information_schema which we'll try very hard to not ever break. Keeping
random atavistic things around, would slow us down, which will be a
price everybody is paying.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-07-30 22:25:45 | Re: alter table docs |
Previous Message | Rob Sargent | 2018-07-30 21:32:34 | Re: alter table docs |