Re: proposal: add columns created and altered to pg_proc and pg_class - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: proposal: add columns created and altered to pg_proc and pg_class
Date
Msg-id 603c8f070904140745p6f49f16cn901c2d7bb0f80853@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: proposal: add columns created and altered to pg_proc and pg_class  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
Responses Re: proposal: add columns created and altered to pg_proc and pg_class  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: proposal: add columns created and altered to pg_proc and pg_class  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I though about it too. But I am not sure, if this isn't too
>> complicated solution for simple task. If I thing little bit more -
>> main important is timestamp of last change.
>
> Yeah, if it would be too heavy to add a timestamp column or two to
> pg_class and maybe one or two others, why is it better to add a whole
> new table to maintain in parallel -- with it's own primary key,
> foreign keys (or similar integrity enforcement mechanism), etc.

Making pg_class and pg_proc tables larger hurts run-time performance,
potentially.  Making a separate table only slows down DDL operations,
which are much less frequent.

...Robert


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Unicode string literals versus the world
Next
From: Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Date:
Subject: Re: Regression failure on RHEL 4 w/ PostgreSQL 8.4 beta1