Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar mar 01 19:03:35 -0300 2011:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> > > Strangely, we made pg_database have a toast table, and the only reason
> > > for this is datacl. Should we create toast tables for the remaining
> > > catalogs?
> >
> > As I commented on your blog, this is nonsense. pg_database has a TOAST
> > table becase we thought it might need one for datconfig[]. Now that
> > that's gone, it'd be consistent to remove the toast table, but it didn't
> > occur to us to do that.
>
> Yeah, it occured to me to troll the git logs just after sending the
> email and I promptly noticed the bug in my conclusion -- there was no
> datacl back then; and pg_db_role_settings is very new.
>
> > aclitem entries wide enough to need toasting are going to suck for all
> > sorts of reasons (IIRC there are some O(N^2) algorithms in there, not
> > to mention the cost of pulling in entries from a toast table on every
> > access) so I am not excited about encouraging people to use them.
>
> I agree on not supporting large numbers of privileges, though the error
> message leaves a bit to be desired.
>
> Should we remove the toast table declaration for pg_database?
>
> (BTW with the relmapper mechanism, do we still need to declare the toast
> table OIDs?)
Did we decide on this? Is it a TODO?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
