> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > OTOH I don't think it's a good thing to try creating
> > > these things on the fly the first time needed. The
> > > required catalog changes and file creations introduce all
> > > kinds of possible rollback/crash problems, that we don't
> > > want to have here - do we?
> > Well, we could print the message suggesing ALTER TABLE when printing
> > tuple too large. Frankly, I don't see a problem in creating the backup
> > table automatically. If you are worried about performance, how about
> > putting it in a subdirectory.
> It's the toast-table and the index. So it's 2 Inodes and 16K
> per table. If the backend is compiled with -g, someone needs
> to create about 500 tables to waste the same amount of space.
> Well, I like the subdirectory idea. I only wonder how that
> should be implemented (actually the tablename is the filename
> - and that doesn't allow / in it).
Not sure. It will take some tricks, I am sure. How about if we add
some TOAST option to CREATE TABLE, so they can create with TOAST support
rather than having to use ALTER every time. Maybe that would work.
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-05-30 14:44:59|
|Subject: Re: 7.0 weirdness |
|Previous:||From: Matthias Urlichs||Date: 2000-05-30 14:31:35|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: 7.0 weirdness|