| From: | Markus Wanner <markus(dot)wanner(at)programmfabrik(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: move column defaults into pg_attribute along with attacl |
| Date: | 2008-09-29 09:47:35 |
| Message-ID: | 48E0A437.5000906@programmfabrik.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Stephen Frost wrote:
> As part of pg_attribute.. Having a seperate table would be an
> alternative to adding a column to pg_shdepend.
Aha. Hm...
I thought tracking dependencies between tables and attributes
complicates DROP TABLE? Why doesn't that concern apply here?
And why do we keep the attributes defaults in their own table with their
own OID, instead of merging them into pg_attributes? (Or put another way
around: why do these need their own dependency tracking, while the ACLs
don't?)
Or do we just want to keep the column-level privileges patch simple here
and deferring other work to another patch?
Regards
Markus Wanner
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | pgsql | 2008-09-29 11:16:30 | Re: Ad-hoc table type? |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2008-09-29 09:38:57 | Re: Proposal: move column defaults into pg_attribute along with attacl |