Re: pg_am.amowner

> 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