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

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

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

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 v�g 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden