Re: missing toast table for pg_policy

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> FWIW, I was off the last few days. I personally think the reasoning to
> leave out pg_class, pg_index etc. is bad.  We should just make them work
> and create toast tables as well.

If it's easy to make those work and keep them working, then sure, but
I have my doubts.  I remain afraid of circular accesses occurring only
in strange corner cases ...

> It's definitely not right that "those
> relations have no reason to use a toast table anyway." as the commit
> message states, given relacl, reloptions and relpartbound.

I wonder whether we shouldn't have handled ACLs through something more
like the pg_description solution, ie keep them all in one catalog with
a (classoid, objoid) primary key.

            regards, tom lane