Thats what I was going to propose if no-one could figure out a way of automatically gathering system table dependencies.
It would be nice (for a minimallist db) to be able to drop a bunch of stuff, but a number of other things would need to be done as well (full system compression for example). -- Rod ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Rod Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Hackers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 1:24 AM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] YADP - Yet another Dependency Patch > "Rod Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> 3. Isn't there a better way to find the initial dependencies? That > >> SELECT is truly ugly, and more to the point is highly likely to > >> break anytime someone rearranges the catalogs. > > > I'm having a really hard time coming up with a good method for this. > > Well, do we actually need an *accurate* representation of the > dependencies? You seemed to like my idea of pinning essential stuff, > and in reality all of the initial catalog structures ought to be pinned. > Maybe it would be sufficient to just make "pinned" entries for > everything that appears in the initial catalogs. Someone who's really > intent on manually deleting, say, the "box" datatype could be expected > to be bright enough to figure out how to remove the pg_depends entry > that's preventing him from doing so. > > (There are a very small number of things that are specifically intended > to be droppable, like the "public" namespace, but seems like excluding > that short list from the pg_depends entries would be more maintainable > than the approach you've got now.) > > regards, tom lane > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
