On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 04:50:06PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-07-20 08:46:50 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 07:18:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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. > > As argued a fair bit ago, I think that isn't actually an issue: As long > as we keep the boostrap relevant fields from being toasted, there's no > issue with circularlity. Given the initial contents are defined to be > static or live in relmapper there's no danger of that accidentally > happening.
I still have some doubts about issues hidden behind our backs with a knife ready to hit... The patch committed is already a good cut I think, and addresses the original complaints from Joe and me. >> That could be nice, but separate from the fact of adding a toast table >> to it? > > Yea, that seems mostly independent. Please don't tell me that I forgot to bump CATALOG_VERSION_NO, and that it needs to be bumped.. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
