Re: Hmm, should ACL[] be toastable? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck)
Subject Re: Hmm, should ACL[] be toastable?
Date
Msg-id 200007292323.BAA03729@hot.jw.home
Whole thread Raw
In response to Hmm, should ACL[] be toastable?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> I notice that ACL lists are represented as arrays of aclitem, which
> means they are now theoretically toastable.  (In practice, I haven't
> finished fixing all the routines that touch ACLs, but will soon.)
>
> Do we need long lists of ACLs?  If so, is there any danger in giving
> pg_class a toast relation?  It's a tad closer to the heart of the
> system than pg_rewrite, so I'm not quite sure if that will work or
> not.  Jan?
   In theory it should work, in practice, I don't know.
   Since pg_class is really close to the heart of the system, it   is created a little different during bootstrap. This
causes,   that  setting  relacl  to  storage  'x' doesn't automatically   create  a  toast  relation  for  it  during
bootstrap.  And   therefore,  the  toaster  should  only try to compress, never   move out (to where?).
 
   Someone could later create such  a  toast  table  with  ALTER   TABLE  ...   if  he wants to give it a try. And we
couldwarn   him not to do so before we really stress tested it.
 
   Is that a compromise?


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Philip Warner
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump + function/table hierarchy
Next
From: "Hiroshi Inoue"
Date:
Subject: another ? lock freezing