| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: erroneous restore into pg_catalog schema |
| Date: | 2013-05-13 17:04:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYFwF9fPoj+iVNYKBUuqf66Duio_cNtB7qrgSJwxdixCw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> It disallowed it only for tables, and not for any other object type.
>> I found that completely arbitrary. It's perfectly obvious that people
>> want to be able to create objects in pg_catalog; shall we adopt a rule
>> that you can put extension there, as long as those extensions don't
>> happen to contain tables? That is certainly confusing and arbitrary.
>
> Why don't we just prohibit deletion/modification for anything below
> FirstNormalObjectId instead of using the schema as a restriction? Then
> we can allow creation for tables as well.
We currently do, but that led to problems with $SUBJECT.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-05-13 17:18:28 | Re: erroneous restore into pg_catalog schema |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-05-13 17:03:33 | Re: erroneous restore into pg_catalog schema |