Re: view reloptions
От | Jaime Casanova |
---|---|
Тема | Re: view reloptions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAJKUy5iqMHAtM4Lii6SELBpYdnfS2np55SUxZF0LVkoCjNz1_g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | view reloptions (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: view reloptions
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I just noticed by chance that view relations are using StdRdOptions to > allocate their reloptions. I can't find any reason for this, other than > someone failed to realize that they should instead have a struct defined > of its own, just like (say) GIN indexes do. Views using StdRdOptions is > quite pointless, given that it's used for stuff like fillfactor and > autovacuum, neither of which apply to views. > > 9.2 added security_barrier to StdRdOptions, and 9.4 is now adding > check_option_offset, which is a string reloption with some funny rules. > [...] > 2) it would mean that security_barrier would change for external code > that expects StdRdOptions rather than, say, ViewOptions > 3) I don't have time to do the legwork before CF1 anyway > > If we don't change it now, I'm afraid we'll be stuck with using > StdRdOptions for views for all eternity. > > (It's a pity I didn't become aware of this earlier in 9.4 cycle when I > added the multixact freeze reloptions ... I could have promoted a patch > back then.) > Attached is a patch moving the reloptions of views into its own structure. i also created a view_reloptions() function in order to not use heap_reloptions() for views, but maybe that was too much? i haven't seen the check_option_offset thingy yet, but i hope to take a look at that tomorrow. -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte 24x7 y capacitación Phone: +593 4 5107566 Cell: +593 987171157
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: