From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 19:20:53 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTik9mPTnAHa1L-ZALT4IWkqUV6fGMxDerDlxUN0A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
>> Is there a reason we don't have t_self as one of the system columns that
>> you can examine from SQL? I'd propose its addition otherwise.
>
> pg_attribute bloat? I'm a bit hesitant to add a row per table for
> something we've gotten along without for so long, especially something
> with as bizarre a definition as "t_self" has got.
>
> 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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-07-05 19:26:54 | Re: t_self as system column |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-07-05 19:14:45 | Re: logistics for beta3 |