On 2014-07-04 11:50:17 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> postgres=# SELECT oid::regclass, reltoastrelid FROM pg_class WHERE relname IN 
> ('pg_seclabel', 'pg_shseclabel');
>       oid      | reltoastrelid
> ---------------+---------------
>  pg_seclabel   |          3598
>  pg_shseclabel |             0
> (2 rows)
> 
> Isn't that a somewhat odd choice? Why do we assume that there cannot be
> lengthy seclabels on shared objects? Granted, most shared objects aren't
> candidates for large amounts of data, but both users and databases don't
> seem to fall into that category.

Hm. It seems they were explicitly removed around
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1309888389-sup-3853%40alvh.no-ip.org

I don't understand the reasoning there. There's a toast table for
non-shared objects. Why would we expect less data for the shared ones,
even though they're pretty basic objects and more likely to be used to
store policies and such?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- 
 Andres Freund                     http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to