On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: >> I would suggest putting this info in a separate table, pg_change. It >> would have oid, catalog, user_changed, changed_on. That way we could >> simply keep the data for all objects which have an OID. > > That makes more sense to me --- it would easily extend to all cases > and would not impose any overhead (in the form of useless columns) > for catalogs that you didn't want to track in a particular case. > > The main problem that would have to be considered is how to flush > no-longer-useful entries (which of course entails deciding which > those are).
I kinda think that the only thing that's going to make sense here is to drop the pg_change entries when the object is dropped. Now, admittedly, that means you can't track drops. But otherwise, you have the potential for pg_change to get really big and full of cruft, and I don't think there's going to be an easy way to garbage collect it. I really like the basic design, though. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
