On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > 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?
Uh, maybe. It's not really clear that there's enough benefit here to justify someone spending time on it. If no one is feeling motivated maybe we should just let it go... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
