| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: View to get all the extension control file details |
| Date: | 2018-10-12 16:57:19 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob=mgdo4T5vGCuK-jiuJ79TQuPX-jDHoiagDnmVAMRZBg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 8:27 AM Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Here is the patch as per the above discussion.
One potential problem with this is that we could add more control-file
attributes in the future, and it will be annoying if the view ends up
with a million columns, or if we ever have to rename them. People who
have created objects that depend on those views may find that
pg_dump/restore or pg_upgrade fail, just as they do when we whack
around pg_stat_activity. pg_settings gets around that using an
EAV-like format. I'm not sure that's the best solution here, but it's
something to think about.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-12 16:57:38 | Re: Why we allow CHECK constraint contradiction? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-10-12 16:53:19 | Re: Why we allow CHECK constraint contradiction? |