On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:36:28PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> done
Thanks Peter. One done, 150 remaining.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 3/14/18 01:47, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> For the other flags we would probably need to test what impact would it
>> have (e.g. table with no indexes, many indexes on other tables, and
>> something calling get_relation_info a lot). But this patch proposes to
>> remove only relhaspkey.
>
> Yes, y
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 01:52:56PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I agree with this sentiment - I don't think those flags are particularly
> helpful for client applications, and would vote +1 for removal.
OK, so I can see that we are moving to a consensus here.
> For the other flags we would probab
On 02/26/2018 07:23 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:45:48AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Michael Paquier writes:
>>> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 10:21:44PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
We've discussed that at least twice before, and not pulled the trigger
for fear of breakin
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:36 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I would be of the opinion to drop them.
+1. On this point, I am in agreement with the gentleman who wrote
http://postgr.es/m/7903.1310671...@sss.pgh.pa.us
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreS
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:45:48AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 10:21:44PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We've discussed that at least twice before, and not pulled the trigger
> >> for fear of breaking client code.
>
> > Speaking of which, I have look
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 10:21:44PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We've discussed that at least twice before, and not pulled the trigger
>> for fear of breaking client code.
> Speaking of which, I have looked at where relhaspkey is being used. And
> there are a couple of thi
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 10:21:44PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > pg_class.relhaspkey doesn't seem to be used or useful for anything, so
> > can we remove it? See attached patch.
>
> We've discussed that at least twice before, and not pulled the trigger
> for fear of break
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> pg_class.relhaspkey doesn't seem to be used or useful for anything, so
> can we remove it? See attached patch.
We've discussed that at least twice before, and not pulled the trigger
for fear of breaking client code.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAA-aLv7s
