Re: Restore relhaspkey in PostgreSQL Version 11 Beta

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 6:21 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 2018-07-30 17:21:25 -0400, Melvin Davidson wrote:
> > * >it has never been the case that relhaspkey meant that the table
> > *currently* has a primary key. *
>
> > *Hmmm, I guess it's a lot harder to fix "squishy semantics"from
> "True
> > if the table has (or once had) a primary key" to "True if the table
> has
> > a primary key after vacuum"rather than just dropping a column that has
> > existed from version 7.2.So now I guess the policy is break code
> instead of
> > fix documention.That meakes sense...NOT!*
>
> A large portion of the system catalogs (i.e. objects within
> pg_catalog.*) are essentially internal implementation details and we'll
> change them if it makes our live easier. If you want stability use
> information_schema which we'll try very hard to not ever break. Keeping
> random atavistic things around, would slow us down, which will be a
> price everybody is paying.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Andres Freund
>

*> If you want stability use information_schema which we'll try very hard
to not ever break. *

*Of course. Would you be so kind as to point out where in the
information_schema it *
*indicates if a table has a primary key or not. Oh wait, now I
remember...no place.*

*>Keeping random atavistic things around, would slow us down, which will be
a>price everybody is paying. *
*Random atavistic things? I hardly think relhaspkey is random. It's been
there since version 7.2.*

*Exactly how does keeping it around slow you/us down?*

--
*Melvin Davidson*
*Maj. Database & Exploration Specialist*
*Universe Exploration Command – UXC*
Employment by invitation only!