On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 07:18:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> FWIW, I was off the last few days. I personally think the reasoning to >> leave out pg_class, pg_index etc. is bad. We should just make them work >> and create toast tables as well. > > If it's easy to make those work and keep them working, then sure, but > I have my doubts. I remain afraid of circular accesses occurring only > in strange corner cases ...
I have found the argument about circular dependencies rather sensible FWIW. So at the end it seems to me that we would not want to add toast tables for those catalogs. >> It's definitely not right that "those >> relations have no reason to use a toast table anyway." as the commit >> message states, given relacl, reloptions and relpartbound. > > I wonder whether we shouldn't have handled ACLs through something more > like the pg_description solution, ie keep them all in one catalog with > a (classoid, objoid) primary key. That could be nice, but separate from the fact of adding a toast table to it? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature