Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> 3. We'd have to nail pg_authid, pg_auth_members, and their indexes into >> relcache, because relcache.c isn't prepared to cope otherwise. I doubt >> this would affect performance in any material way, but it would eat a >> few more kbytes of storage per backend.
> Hmm, I'm not sure I understand why this is necessary or what our other > options are. relcache.c assumes that "critical" relations (those for which we have hard-wired descriptors in schemapg.h) are always nailed-in-cache. In the general case this is necessary because we'd not be able to rebuild the cache entry if it got discarded; eg, without a pg_class entry you're dead in the water. It's possible we could decouple these attributes; for instance develop a notion of being nailed only until authentication finishes, or something like that. I'm not thinking it's worth it though. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers