Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar mar 01 19:03:35 -0300 2011: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > > Strangely, we made pg_database have a toast table, and the only reason > > for this is datacl. Should we create toast tables for the remaining > > catalogs? > > As I commented on your blog, this is nonsense. pg_database has a TOAST > table becase we thought it might need one for datconfig[]. Now that > that's gone, it'd be consistent to remove the toast table, but it didn't > occur to us to do that.
Yeah, it occured to me to troll the git logs just after sending the email and I promptly noticed the bug in my conclusion -- there was no datacl back then; and pg_db_role_settings is very new. > aclitem entries wide enough to need toasting are going to suck for all > sorts of reasons (IIRC there are some O(N^2) algorithms in there, not > to mention the cost of pulling in entries from a toast table on every > access) so I am not excited about encouraging people to use them. I agree on not supporting large numbers of privileges, though the error message leaves a bit to be desired. Should we remove the toast table declaration for pg_database? (BTW with the relmapper mechanism, do we still need to declare the toast table OIDs?) -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
