From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE on system catalogs |
Date: | 2018-08-20 12:38:25 |
Message-ID: | b49018c4-6592-eece-f5db-5978fda1f5df@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 20/08/2018 12:48, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-08-20 11:37:49 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 11:05:10AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> After reviewing that thread, I think my patch would still be relevant.
>>> Because the pending proposal is to not add TOAST tables to some catalogs
>>> such as pg_attribute, so my original use case of allowing ALTER TABLE /
>>> SET on system catalogs would still be broken for those tables.
>>
>> Something has happened in this area in the shape of 96cdeae, and the
>> following catalogs do not have toast tables: pg_class, pg_index,
>> pg_attribute and pg_largeobject*. While 0001 proposed upthread is not
>> really relevant anymore because there is already a test to list which
>> catalogs do not have a toast table. For 0002, indeed the patch is still
>> seems relevant. The comment block at the beginning of
>> create_toast_table should be updated.
>
> I still object to the approach in 0002.
Do you have an alternative in mind?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-20 12:39:59 | Re: WaitForOlderSnapshots refactoring |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-08-20 12:35:34 | WaitForOlderSnapshots refactoring |