Re: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database"

Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndquadrant.com>, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2013-01-08T22:12:21Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2013/1/8 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>:
> On 1/5/13 11:04 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Creating a separate catalog (or two) every time we want to track XYZ for
>> all objects is rather overkill...  Thinking about this a bit more, and
>> noting that pg_description/shdescription more-or-less already exist as a
>> framework for tracking 'something' for 'all catalog entries'- why don't
>> we just add these columns to those tables..?  This would also address
>> Peter's concern about making sure we do this 'wholesale' and in one
>> release rather than spread across multiple releases- just make sure it
>> covers the same set of things which 'comment' does.
>
> Yeah, actually, the other day I was thinking we should get rid of all
> the system catalogs and use a big EAV-like schema instead.  We're not
> getting any relational-database value out of the current way, and it's
> just a lot of duplicate code.  If we had a full EAV system, we could
> even do in-place upgrade.
>

-1

now we have a thousands tables, I am not sure so EAV can get good performance

Pavel

> Obviously, this isn't going to happen any time soon or ever, but I think
> I agree with your concern above as a partial step.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers