Re: proposal: add columns created and altered to pg_proc and pg_class
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: proposal: add columns created and altered to pg_proc and pg_class |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 603c8f070904140745p6f49f16cn901c2d7bb0f80853@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: proposal: add columns created and altered to pg_proc and pg_class ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
Ответы |
Re: proposal: add columns created and altered to pg_proc and pg_class
Re: proposal: add columns created and altered to pg_proc and pg_class |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: >> I though about it too. But I am not sure, if this isn't too >> complicated solution for simple task. If I thing little bit more - >> main important is timestamp of last change. > > Yeah, if it would be too heavy to add a timestamp column or two to > pg_class and maybe one or two others, why is it better to add a whole > new table to maintain in parallel -- with it's own primary key, > foreign keys (or similar integrity enforcement mechanism), etc. Making pg_class and pg_proc tables larger hurts run-time performance, potentially. Making a separate table only slows down DDL operations, which are much less frequent. ...Robert
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: