On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 04:50:06PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-07-20 08:46:50 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 07:18:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I have found the argument about circular dependencies rather sensible
>> FWIW. So at the end it seems to me that we would not want to add toast
>> tables for those catalogs.
>
> As argued a fair bit ago, I think that isn't actually an issue: As long
> as we keep the boostrap relevant fields from being toasted, there's no
> issue with circularlity. Given the initial contents are defined to be
> static or live in relmapper there's no danger of that accidentally
> happening.
I still have some doubts about issues hidden behind our backs with a
knife ready to hit... The patch committed is already a good cut I
think, and addresses the original complaints from Joe and me.
>> That could be nice, but separate from the fact of adding a toast table
>> to it?
>
> Yea, that seems mostly independent.
Please don't tell me that I forgot to bump CATALOG_VERSION_NO, and that
it needs to be bumped..
--
Michael