On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 6:21 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> Hi, > > On 2018-07-30 17:21:25 -0400, Melvin Davidson wrote: > > * >it has never been the case that relhaspkey meant that the table > > *currently* has a primary key. * > > > *Hmmm, I guess it's a lot harder to fix "squishy semantics"from > "True > > if the table has (or once had) a primary key" to "True if the table > has > > a primary key after vacuum"rather than just dropping a column that has > > existed from version 7.2.So now I guess the policy is break code > instead of > > fix documention.That meakes sense...NOT!* > > A large portion of the system catalogs (i.e. objects within > pg_catalog.*) are essentially internal implementation details and we'll > change them if it makes our live easier. If you want stability use > information_schema which we'll try very hard to not ever break. Keeping > random atavistic things around, would slow us down, which will be a > price everybody is paying. > > Greetings, > > Andres Freund > *> If you want stability use information_schema which we'll try very hard to not ever break. * *Of course. Would you be so kind as to point out where in the information_schema it * *indicates if a table has a primary key or not. Oh wait, now I remember...no place.* *>Keeping random atavistic things around, would slow us down, which will be a>price everybody is paying. * *Random atavistic things? I hardly think relhaspkey is random. It's been there since version 7.2.* *Exactly how does keeping it around slow you/us down?* -- *Melvin Davidson* *Maj. Database & Exploration Specialist* *Universe Exploration Command – UXC* Employment by invitation only!
