On 13.05.2013 19:59, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> Another way to fix that inconsistency is to consider that
>>> allow_system_table_mods should gate table creations not just drops in
>>> pg_catalog. I'm not real sure why this wasn't the case all along ...
>>
>> Uh, scratch that last comment: actually, allow_system_table_mods *did*
>> gate that, in every existing release. I bitched upthread about the fact
>> that this was changed in 9.3, and did not hear any very satisfactory
>> defense of the change.
>
> It disallowed it only for tables, and not for any other object type.
> I found that completely arbitrary. It's perfectly obvious that people
> want to be able to create objects in pg_catalog; shall we adopt a rule
> that you can put extension there, as long as those extensions don't
> happen to contain tables? That is certainly confusing and arbitrary.
Makes sense to me, actually. It's quite sensible to put functions,
operators, etc. in pg_catalog. Especially if they're part of an
extension. But I can't think of a good reason for putting a table in
pg_catalog. Maybe some sort of control data for an extension, but seems
like a kludge. Its contents wouldn't be included in pg_dump, for example.
- Heikki
