On 07/30/2018 04:11 PM, Melvin Davidson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 6:21 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de
<mailto: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 <http://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.*
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/infoschema-table-constraints.html
"constraint_type character_data Type of the constraint: CHECK, FOREIGN
KEY, PRIMARY KEY, or UNIQUE"
*
*
*>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!
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
