It seems that access methods nominally have an "owner", but that owner is
nowhere else referenced. Since there is no user interface for adding
access methods anyway, would there be any problems with removing that
field?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vï¿½g 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden


Thu, 1 Jun 2000 01:51:42 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
pg_am.amowner
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> It seems that access methods nominally have an "owner", but that owner is
> nowhere else referenced. Since there is no user interface for adding
> access methods anyway, would there be any problems with removing that
> field?

I can't think of a reason not to remove it.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Wed, 31 May 2000 20:01:50 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: pg_am.amowner
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> It seems that access methods nominally have an "owner", but that owner is
> nowhere else referenced. Since there is no user interface for adding
> access methods anyway, would there be any problems with removing that
> field?

Hmm ... offhand I'm having a hard time seeing that it would make sense
to associate protection checks with an access method.  The only use
I can see for the owner field is to control who could delete an access
method --- and I don't have much problem with saying "only the
superuser".  It's even harder to believe that we'd really want non-
superusers installing access methods.

But the other side of the coin is what harm is it doing?  Surely you're
not worried about the space occupied by the column ;-)

			regards, tom lane

Wed, 31 May 2000 22:26:12 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: pg_am.amowner 
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > It seems that access methods nominally have an "owner", but that owner is
> > nowhere else referenced. Since there is no user interface for adding
> > access methods anyway, would there be any problems with removing that
> > field?
> 
> Hmm ... offhand I'm having a hard time seeing that it would make sense
> to associate protection checks with an access method.  The only use
> I can see for the owner field is to control who could delete an access
> method --- and I don't have much problem with saying "only the
> superuser".  It's even harder to believe that we'd really want non-
> superusers installing access methods.
> 
> But the other side of the coin is what harm is it doing?  Surely you're
> not worried about the space occupied by the column ;-)

Seems our system catalogs are confusing enough.  Any trimming is
helpful, no?


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Wed, 31 May 2000 22:36:56 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: pg_am.amowner
Tom Lane writes:

> But the other side of the coin is what harm is it doing?

Well, I'm going to have to change it from int32 to oid but I might as well
remove it with about the same amount of keystrokes and the same effect. :)


-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vï¿½g 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden


Sat, 3 Jun 2000 01:47:30 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: pg_am.amowner 