Stupor Genius <stuporg@erols.com>
> 
> > We could add another column to "pg_rewrite" which contained the
> > source for the rule. This could be used by pg_dump to dump the
> > rule creation statement, or by the user to see what the rule
> > actually does.
> > 
> > Perhaps someone who knows how to graft in new columns could do
> > that now before we finalise 6.4, even if we don't use it straight
> > away it would serve as a marker.
> > 
> > I believe a dump/restore is required for 6.3 to 6.4 so we might as
> > well get the catalog change in sooner rather than later.
> 
> Adding a column will take away from the already-tight space needed
> to keep the plan.

Ah, yes, I remember, the 8k limit.
> 
> Perhaps a better way is to have a new non-cached system table that
> would be joined to pg_rewrite to show the plain-text plan when needed.

Another table would be the answer, and no need to have it cached.

> 
> Rather than require the user to know this join, postgres could (or
> should) have some system views (ala Oracle) to hide the underlying
> table structures and prevent any user except the superuser from
> modifying a system table without using a postgres command.
> 

I use Oracle at work and I must admit I find the views useful.

It seems quite natural to use SQL to to look at these things
and views to combine information.

Keith.



Tue, 18 Aug 1998 18:59:52 +0100 (BST)
Keith Parks <emkxp01@mtcc.demon.co.uk>
RE: [HACKERS] Rules: first fix on monday