On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Yeah, that's about what it would take, but what I'm asking is why > bother. The *only* case that we support here is turning a just-created, > not-fooled-with table into a view, and I don't feel a need to promise > that we will handle other cases (which are inevitably going to be poorly > tested). See for example the adjacent relhassubclass test, which has > got exactly the same issue. > >> One related thing that seems worth doing is ripping out relhaspkey, > > Having a hard time getting excited about that either ...
The fact that this code is poorly tested is exactly why I don't think we should be complicating it with doodads of doubtful utility. The existence of these Booleans causes people to use them. This probably doesn't save any appreciable amount of performance, but it does make it easier to write wrong code. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs