Re: pg_depend

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_depend
Date: 2001-07-17 19:58:45
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0107172158040.678-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane writes:

> The alternative to pg_depend is to do a brute force scan of all the
> system catalogs looking for dependent objects. In that case, you'd
> know what you are looking at, but if we extract the dependencies as
> a separate table, I don't see how you'd know without being told.

The former is what I'm advocating.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-07-17 20:03:17 Re: pg_depend
Previous Message svanegmond 2001-07-17 19:49:22 Execution statistics