Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I have to say that I'm going to change on-disk database/table/index
>> file names to _OID_! This is required by WAL because of inside of
>> log records there will be just database/table/index oids, not names,
>> and after crash recovery will not be able to read pg_class to get
>> database/table/index name using oid ...
>Wow, that is a major pain. Anyone else think so?
Consider had Vadim made this proposal (set the time-travel machine to
version 7.1.2 or so):
"I'm going to remove WAL from Postgres, so that we can use
the table name as the filename for the table on disk."
So, no, rather than being a major pain, I'd classify it as a minor
inconvenience. If it becomes, in fact, a major pain, one can always
write a two-line psql script that prints a table name, given an oid.
On an unrelated matter, I haven't been following the "limit elimination"
effort as closely as I should have. Is it now possible to compile Postgres
with 16Kb tuple size, and insert/select 15Kb text fields from the tuples?
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1999-11-30 03:54:37|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] UNION not allowed in sub-selects?|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1999-11-30 03:28:45|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] A bag of psql goodies|