| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Stephen R(dot) van den Berg" <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Roberto Mello <roberto(dot)mello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_rawdump |
| Date: | 2010-10-20 14:28:49 |
| Message-ID: | 26073.1287584929@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Stephen R. van den Berg" <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl> writes:
> It's just that matching table and file, and subsequently figuring out
> some missing columns which may have been added/removed later,
> can be rather timeconsuming and could be made a lot easier (not necessarily
> perfect) if that information would have been present in the first page of
> a file.
So you've already moved the goalposts from what was claimed in your
prior message. If the data is not maintained (with 100% reliability)
during ALTER TABLE, how are you going to do something like "figure out
missing columns"?
I can see the potential usefulness of a self-documenting table storage
format, but this proposal isn't that; it's just an unreliable kluge.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2010-10-20 14:29:19 | Re: Simplifying replication |
| Previous Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2010-10-20 14:22:20 | Re: PostgreSQL and HugePage |