From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: t_self as system column |
Date: | 2010-07-05 19:26:54 |
Message-ID: | 7444.1278358014@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> At one time I was hoping to get rid of explicit entries in pg_attribute
>> for system columns, which would negate this concern. I think we're
>> stuck with them now, though, because of per-column permissions.
> Because someone might want to grant per-column permissions on those
> columns? That seems like an awfully thin reason to keep all that
> bloat around. I bet the number of people who have granted per-column
> permissions on, say, cmax can be counted on one hand - possibly with
> five fingers left over.
I'd agree with that argument for the most part, but I'm not entirely
sure about oid, which has some characteristics of a user-data column.
(OTOH, maybe we could allow just oid to retain an explicit pg_attribute
entry... could be messy though.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-07-05 21:57:37 | Re: pessimal trivial-update performance |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-07-05 19:20:53 | Re: t_self as system column |