On 2018-07-20 08:56:32 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > 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.
I disagree fairly strongly. I think that's a half-assed way to address the concerns raised in this thread. All but guarantees that we'll have this discussion again. > >> 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.. You mean I shouldn't say that it needs to because you already know? Because obviously, yes, that's required and appears to be missing? Greetings, Andres Freund