From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: logical changeset generation v6.7 |
Date: | 2013-12-03 20:13:24 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZV8_=0LO716sNKwPp+dLzbsFXYO=1p1m4NOo8RRemcDg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2013-11-28 21:15:18 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> OK, I've committed the patch to adjust the definition of
>> IsSystemRelation()/IsSystemClass() and add
>> IsCatalogRelation()/IsCatalogClass().
>
> Thanks for taking care of this!
>
>> I kibitzed your decision about
>> which function to use in a few places - specifically, I made all of
>> the places that cared about allow_system_table_mods uses the IsSystem
>> functions, and all the places that cared about invalidation messages
>> use the IsCatalog functions. I don't think any of these changes are
>> more cosmetic, but I think it may reduce the chance of errors or
>> inconsistencies in the face of future changes.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Do you think we need to do anything about the
> ERROR: cannot remove dependency on schema pg_catalog because it is a system object
> thingy? Imo the current state is much more consistent than the earlier
> one, but that's still a quite surprising leftover...
I don't feel obliged to change it, but I also don't see a reason not
to clean it up.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2013-12-03 20:15:08 | Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-12-03 19:41:08 | Re: Extension Templates S03E11 |