Thread: pg_am.amowner
It seems that access methods nominally have an "owner", but that owner is nowhere else referenced. Since there is no user interface for adding access methods anyway, would there be any problems with removing that field? -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > It seems that access methods nominally have an "owner", but that owner is > nowhere else referenced. Since there is no user interface for adding > access methods anyway, would there be any problems with removing that > field? I can't think of a reason not to remove it. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> It seems that access methods nominally have an "owner", but that owner is
> nowhere else referenced. Since there is no user interface for adding
> access methods anyway, would there be any problems with removing that
> field?
Hmm ... offhand I'm having a hard time seeing that it would make sense
to associate protection checks with an access method. The only use
I can see for the owner field is to control who could delete an access
method --- and I don't have much problem with saying "only the
superuser". It's even harder to believe that we'd really want non-
superusers installing access methods.
But the other side of the coin is what harm is it doing? Surely you're
not worried about the space occupied by the column ;-)
regards, tom lane
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > > It seems that access methods nominally have an "owner", but that owner is > > nowhere else referenced. Since there is no user interface for adding > > access methods anyway, would there be any problems with removing that > > field? > > Hmm ... offhand I'm having a hard time seeing that it would make sense > to associate protection checks with an access method. The only use > I can see for the owner field is to control who could delete an access > method --- and I don't have much problem with saying "only the > superuser". It's even harder to believe that we'd really want non- > superusers installing access methods. > > But the other side of the coin is what harm is it doing? Surely you're > not worried about the space occupied by the column ;-) Seems our system catalogs are confusing enough. Any trimming is helpful, no? -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Tom Lane writes: > But the other side of the coin is what harm is it doing? Well, I'm going to have to change it from int32 to oid but I might as well remove it with about the same amount of keystrokes and the same effect. :) -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden