Among the consequences of creating a temp table is the fact that we
create pg_shdepend entries for the owner. This is largely unnecessary
-- we only need it when the table owner is not the authenticated user.
I hereby propose we don't create those entries, since obviously the
tables would go away
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Among the consequences of creating a temp table is the fact that we
create pg_shdepend entries for the owner. This is largely unnecessary
-- we only need it when the table owner is not the authenticated user.
I hereby propose we don't create those entries, since
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Among the consequences of creating a temp table is the fact that we
create pg_shdepend entries for the owner. This is largely unnecessary
-- we only need it when the table owner is not the authenticated user.
I hereby propose we don't create
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So now my thinking is that we should disallow dropping a connected user.
I agree with that, but I think your idea of not making the pg_shdepend
entries is a pointless and possibly dangerous micro-optimization.
How much actual speedup would it provide,
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So now my thinking is that we should disallow dropping a connected user.
I agree with that, but I think your idea of not making the pg_shdepend
entries is a pointless and possibly dangerous micro-optimization.
How much actual speedup
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I agree with that, but I think your idea of not making the pg_shdepend
entries is a pointless and possibly dangerous micro-optimization.
How much actual speedup would it provide, anyway?
Speedup? Not sure -- I'm more worried about
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I agree with that, but I think your idea of not making the pg_shdepend
entries is a pointless and possibly dangerous micro-optimization.
How much actual speedup would it provide, anyway?
Speedup? Not sure -- I'm
