Re: Hmm, should ACL[] be toastable?
От | JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck) |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Hmm, should ACL[] be toastable? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200007292323.BAA03729@hot.jw.home обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Hmm, should ACL[] be toastable? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > I notice that ACL lists are represented as arrays of aclitem, which > means they are now theoretically toastable. (In practice, I haven't > finished fixing all the routines that touch ACLs, but will soon.) > > Do we need long lists of ACLs? If so, is there any danger in giving > pg_class a toast relation? It's a tad closer to the heart of the > system than pg_rewrite, so I'm not quite sure if that will work or > not. Jan? In theory it should work, in practice, I don't know. Since pg_class is really close to the heart of the system, it is created a little different during bootstrap. This causes, that setting relacl to storage 'x' doesn't automatically create a toast relation for it during bootstrap. And therefore, the toaster should only try to compress, never move out (to where?). Someone could later create such a toast table with ALTER TABLE ... if he wants to give it a try. And we couldwarn him not to do so before we really stress tested it. Is that a compromise? Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: