On 04/01/2015 12:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
On 04/01/2015 12:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
The only possible issue I see on reading the patches is that these are
treated differently for dependencies than other regFOO types. Rather
than create a dependency if a value is used in a default expression, an
error is raised if one is found. Are we OK with that?
Why would it be a good idea to act differently from the others?
I have no idea.
It was mentioned here
<http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150218.174231.125293096.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
but nobody seems to have commented. I'm not sure why it was done like
this. Adding the dependencies seems to be no harder than raising the
exception. I think we can kick this back to the author to fix.
After a bit more thought it occurred to me that a dependency on a role
would need to be a shared dependency, and the existing infrastructure
for recordDependencyOnExpr() wouldn't support that.
I'm not sure that it's worth adding the complexity to allow shared
dependencies along with normal ones there. This might be a reason
to reject the regrole part of the patch, as requiring more complexity
than it's worth.
But in any case I cannot see a reason to treat regnamespace differently
from the existing types on this point.
Good points.
I agree re namespace. And I also agree that shared dependency support is
not worth the trouble, especially not just to support regrole. I'm not
sure that's a reason to reject regrole entirely, though. However, I also
think there is a significantly less compelling case for it than for
regnamespace, based on the number of times I have wanted each.
Anybody else have thoughts on this?
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
