On 2016-08-14 21:04:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2016-08-07 14:46:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> I think the whole idea of a fast temporary table is that there are no
> >>> catalog entries. If there are no catalog entries, then dependencies
> >>> are not visible. If there ARE catalog entries, to what do they refer?
> >>> Without a pg_class entry for the table, there's no table OID upon
> >>> which to depend.
> >> TBH, I think that the chances of such a design getting committed are
> >> not distinguishable from zero. Tables have to have OIDs; there is just
> >> too much code that assumes that. And I seriously doubt that it will
> >> work (for any large value of "work") without catalog entries.
> > That seems a bit too defeatist.
> Huh? I didn't say we shouldn't work on the problem --- I just think that
> this particular approach isn't good. Which you seemed to agree with.
I took your statement to mean that they need a pg_class entry - even if
there were a partial solution to the pg_depend problem allowing to avoid
pg_attribute entries, tha't still not really be a solution. If that's
not what you mean, sorry - and nice that we agree ;)
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: