> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
> [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org]On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > For the ignorant, are you able to explain why naming files
> > '<table_name>_<IOD>' is not acceptable? This seems to satisfy both
> > requirements (and seemed to be the conclusion of the previous
> Well, it's pretty simple: consider what has to happen to make RENAME
> TABLE be rollback-able.
Is it necessary to get the relation path name from the relation name/oid etc
each time ?
Is it bad to keep the relation path name in pg_class(or another relation) ?
If a new vessel is needed for copy(etc)ing existent tuples we have to
another unique path name otherwise we can use already allocated file name.
And is it good to dicide the unique path name from oid/relname etc ?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Mark Hollomon||Date: 2000-03-08 13:05:20|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block|
|Previous:||From: Hiroshi Inoue||Date: 2000-03-08 09:40:20|
|Subject: RE: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block|