From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: collations in shared catalogs? |
Date: | 2015-05-18 23:59:29 |
Message-ID: | 30745.1431993569@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2015-05-18 19:23:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is it okay to change pg_replication_origin.roname to type "name",
>> and if not what do you want to do instead?
> It was turned into text after it initially was name, because of length
> concerns.
> Hm, just forcing a collation and restricting the input to ascii should
> work, right?
I think that's fragile as can be. Is there a *really really* good
argument why these things shouldn't be subject to identifier length
restrictions?
>> While I'm looking at it, why in the world have roident and not just a
>> standard system OID column? This catalog seems willfully ignorant of
>> Postgres conventions.
> There's a comment:
> * Needs to fit into an uint16, so we don't waste too much space in WAL
> * records. For this reason we don't use a normal Oid column here, since
> * we need to handle allocation of new values manually.
If it needs to fit into uint16, why not make it smallint? The declaration
seems 100% misleading if it's not an OID. Moreover, the catalog
infrastructure is failing to help you make sure the values are unique.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2015-05-19 00:06:58 | Re: Run pgindent now? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-05-18 23:53:23 | Re: Disabling trust/ident authentication configure option |