Re: pg_depend

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Bruce Momjian
Тема Re: pg_depend
Дата
Msg-id 200107172003.f6HK3Iw05710@candle.pha.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: pg_depend  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Список pgsql-hackers
> Tom Lane writes:
> 
> > The alternative to pg_depend is to do a brute force scan of all the
> > system catalogs looking for dependent objects.  In that case, you'd
> > know what you are looking at, but if we extract the dependencies as
> > a separate table, I don't see how you'd know without being told.
> 
> The former is what I'm advocating.

So you are basically saying you don't like pg_depend.  Would you prefer
to use it only in cases we can't encode the dependencies easily in the
system catalogs, like functions that require certain relations?

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pg_depend