Re: pg_depend - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ross J. Reedstrom
Subject Re: pg_depend
Date
Msg-id 20010718094828.A25319@rice.edu
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_depend  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 07:13:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Nonetheless, a properly indexed pg_depend table would allow you to find
> these objects directly, and again to find their dependents directly,
> etc.  The brute force approach would require a rather expensive scan
> over all the system catalogs, plus nontrivial analysis for some types
> of system objects such as functions.  Repeating that for each cascaded
> delete is even less appetizing than doing it once.

Stated that way, the performance argument sounds very convincing. However,
the _real_ convincer for me is the support for user designated
dependencies, as Tom pointed out earlier. That allows the system to do
as much as possible automatically, (even functional dependency analysis,
if someone want to write it) but doesn't require the automatic mechanisms
to be perfect: the DBA has a mechanism to do the crazy, edge case things.

Ross


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Patrick Macdonald
Date:
Subject: Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em
Next
From: Philip Warner
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_depend