From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Fuzzy thinking in is_publishable_class
Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 09:41:16 -0400
Message-ID: <2466.1557409276@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e0f42cfb-b88f-2528-302b-ef6b96410d35@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <15150.1557257111@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<29939.1557369425@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<e0f42cfb-b88f-2528-302b-ef6b96410d35@2ndquadrant.com>
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-05-09 04:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But, if what we want is the definition that "information_schema is
>> excluded from publishable tables", I'm not satisfied with this
>> implementation of that rule.
> ... It would also make sense to integrate both of these concepts more
> consistently with the user_catalog_table feature. Perhaps the
> information_schema tables could be made user catalogs. Really we should
> just have a single flag in pg_class that says "I'm a catalog",
> applicable both to built-in catalogs and to user-defined catalogs.
I do not want to go there because (a) it means that you can't tell a
catalog from a non-catalog without a catalog lookup, which has got
obvious circularity problems, and (b) the idea that a user can add
a catalog without hacking the C code is silly on its face. I would
say that the actual important functional distinction between a catalog
and a user table is whether the C code knows about it.
Perhaps, for replication purposes, there's some value in having a
third category of tables that are treated more nearly like catalogs
than user tables in whether-to-replicate decisions. But let's not
fuzz the issue by calling them catalogs. I think just calling it
a "NO REPLICATE" property would be less confusing.
> I think we can get rid of the ability to reload the information_schema
> after initdb. That was interesting in the early phase of its
> development, but now it just creates complications.
We've relied on that more than once to allow minor-release updates of
information_schema views, so I think losing the ability to do it is
a bad idea.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Fuzzy thinking in is_publishable_class
In-Reply-To: <2466.1557409276@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox