Re: How about to have relnamespace and relrole?

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Two reasons this isn't terribly compelling are (1) it's creating a
> join in a place where the planner can't possibly see it and optimize
> it, and (2) you risk MVCC anomalies because the reg* output routines
> would not be using the same snapshot as the calling query.
>
> We already have problem (2) with the existing reg* functions so I'm
> not that excited about doubling down on the concept.

I think I agree.  I mean, I agree that this notation is more
convenient, but I don't really want to add a whole new slough of types
--- these will certainly not be the only ones we want once we go down
this path --- to the default install just for notational convenience.
It's arguable, of course, but I guess I'm going to vote against this
patch.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company