Re: [HACKERS] Create Group

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Create Group
Date: 1999-12-14 19:26:01
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.20.9912141536290.388-100000@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 1999-12-13, Tom Lane mentioned:

> > Also, why can pg_group not be vacuumed? (pg_shadow can.) With all this
> > testing, mine is filling up.
>
> > Perhaps related, but just out of curiosity: Why is pg_group a system
> > relatation (pg_class.relkind='s')?
>
> That seems wrong, wrong, wrong --- and it probably explains why VACUUM
> won't touch it. 's' is for special relations not system relations, and
> pg_group is not special. I'm surprised it works at all...

NOTICE: Vacuum: can not process index and certain system tables

Feel free to change this sooner rather than later because it also throws
off a few other things (e.g., psql and pg_dump probably). I couldn't even
find the place where this is specified in the catalogs. I really assume
this is an accident that has gone unnoticed because of the lack of usage.

Afterthought: The last claim seems to be supported by code fragments such
as this:

#define Natts_pg_group 1
#define Anum_pg_group_groname 1
#define Anum_pg_group_grosysid 2
#define Anum_pg_group_grolist 3

--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 1999-12-14 19:26:33 Arrays
Previous Message Don Baccus 1999-12-14 18:54:37 Re: [HACKERS] UNICODE characters vs. BINARY