Re: Big 7.1 open items

On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 05:48:59PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I've also mentioned many times neither relname nor oid is sufficient
> > for the uniqueness. In addiiton neither relname nor oid would be
> > necessary for the uniqueness.
> > IMHO,it's bad to rely on the item which is neither necessary nor
> > sufficient.
> > I proposed relname+unique_id naming once. The unique_id is
> > independent from oid. The relname is only for convinience for
> > DBA and so we don't have to change it due to RENAME.
> > Db's consistency is much more important than dba's satis-
> > faction.
> >
> > Comments ?
>
> I am happy not to rename the file on 'RENAME', but seems no one likes
> that.

Good, 'cause that's how I've implemented it so far. Actually, all
I've done is port my previous patch to current, with one little
change: I added a macro RelationGetRealRelationName which does what
RelationGetPhysicalRelationName used to do: i.e. return the relname with
no temptable funny business, and used that for the relcache macros. It
passes all the serial regression tests: I haven't run the parallel tests
yet. ALTER TABLE RENAME rollsback nicely. I'll need to learn some omre
about xacts to get DROP TABLE rolling back.

I'll drop it on PATCHES right now, for comment.

Ross
--
Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>
NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer
Computer and Information Technology Institute
Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005