From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: t_self as system column |
Date: | 2010-07-05 18:08:07 |
Message-ID: | 19647.1278353287@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Is there a reason we don't have t_self as one of the system columns that
> you can examine from SQL? I'd propose its addition otherwise.
pg_attribute bloat? I'm a bit hesitant to add a row per table for
something we've gotten along without for so long, especially something
with as bizarre a definition as "t_self" has got.
At one time I was hoping to get rid of explicit entries in pg_attribute
for system columns, which would negate this concern. I think we're
stuck with them now, though, because of per-column permissions.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-07-05 18:12:47 | Re: Buildfarm + Git tryouts |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-07-05 17:40:18 | t_self as system column |