| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block |
| Date: | 2000-03-08 01:13:53 |
| Message-ID: | 23210.952478033@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> BTW, we are not *that* far from being able to roll back a DROP TABLE.
>> The only thing that's really needed is for everyone to take a deep
>> breath and let go of the notion that table files ought to be named
>> after the tables. If we named table files after the OIDs of their
>> tables, then rollback-able DROP or RENAME TABLE would be pretty
>> straightforward. If you don't recall why this is, consult the
>> pghackers archives...
> The oid will be appended to the base file name.
If we do it that way, then RENAME TABLE will be kinda complicated...
not impossible, but is it worth it?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-03-08 01:19:09 | Re: [HACKERS] xlog.c.patch for cygwin port. |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-03-08 01:08:27 | Re: [HACKERS] sqgfault on initdb with current CVS |