--On 26. September 2010 15:50:06 -0400 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
I think his question was - how do we feel about the massive catalog
bloat this patch will create?
It's a fair question.
I can imagine designing things so that we don't create an explicit
pg_constraint row for the simplest case of an unnamed, non-inherited
NOT NULL constraint. Seems like it would complicate matters quite
a lot though, in exchange for saving what in the end isn't an enormous
amount of space.
What i can try is to record the inheritance information only in case of
attinhcount > 0. This would make maintenance of the pg_constraint records
for NOT NULL columns a little complicater though. Another thing we should
consider is that Peter's functional dependency patch was supposed to rely
on this feature (1), once it gets done. Not sure this still holds true....
1)
<http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1279361718.17928.1.ca...@vanquo.pezone.net>
--
Thanks
Bernd
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
