On 13.05.2013 19:59, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
I wrote:
Another way to fix that inconsistency is to consider that
allow_system_table_mods should gate table creations not just drops in
pg_catalog. I'm not real sure why this wasn't the case all along ...
Uh, scratch that last comment: actually, allow_system_table_mods *did*
gate that, in every existing release. I bitched upthread about the fact
that this was changed in 9.3, and did not hear any very satisfactory
defense of the change.
It disallowed it only for tables, and not for any other object type.
I found that completely arbitrary. It's perfectly obvious that people
want to be able to create objects in pg_catalog; shall we adopt a rule
that you can put extension there, as long as those extensions don't
happen to contain tables? That is certainly confusing and arbitrary.
Makes sense to me, actually. It's quite sensible to put functions,
operators, etc. in pg_catalog. Especially if they're part of an
extension. But I can't think of a good reason for putting a table in
pg_catalog. Maybe some sort of control data for an extension, but seems
like a kludge. Its contents wouldn't be included in pg_dump, for example.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
