Re: pg_depend - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: pg_depend
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.30.0107172158040.678-100000@peter.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_depend  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pg_depend
Re: pg_depend
Re: pg_depend
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane writes:

> The alternative to pg_depend is to do a brute force scan of all the
> system catalogs looking for dependent objects.  In that case, you'd
> know what you are looking at, but if we extract the dependencies as
> a separate table, I don't see how you'd know without being told.

The former is what I'm advocating.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net   http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em
Next
From: svanegmond@bang.dhs.org
Date:
Subject: Execution statistics