Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar mar 01 19:03:35 -0300 2011: > > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > > > Strangely, we made pg_database have a toast table, and the only reason > > > for this is datacl. Should we create toast tables for the remaining > > > catalogs? > > > > As I commented on your blog, this is nonsense. pg_database has a TOAST > > table becase we thought it might need one for datconfig[]. Now that > > that's gone, it'd be consistent to remove the toast table, but it didn't > > occur to us to do that. > > Yeah, it occured to me to troll the git logs just after sending the > email and I promptly noticed the bug in my conclusion -- there was no > datacl back then; and pg_db_role_settings is very new. > > > aclitem entries wide enough to need toasting are going to suck for all > > sorts of reasons (IIRC there are some O(N^2) algorithms in there, not > > to mention the cost of pulling in entries from a toast table on every > > access) so I am not excited about encouraging people to use them. > > I agree on not supporting large numbers of privileges, though the error > message leaves a bit to be desired. > > Should we remove the toast table declaration for pg_database? > > (BTW with the relmapper mechanism, do we still need to declare the toast > table OIDs?)
Did we decide on this? Is it a TODO? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
