From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: unlogged tables |
Date: | 2010-11-14 00:59:35 |
Message-ID: | 26619.1289696375@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Here is a series of three patches related to unlogged tables.
> 1. The first one (relpersistence-v1) is a mostly mechanical patch that
> replaces pg_class.relistemp (a Boolean) with pg_class.relpersistence
> (a character), so that we can support more than two values. BE SURE
> YOU INITDB, since the old catalog format will not work with this patch
> applied.
While I'm griping ... is there a really good reason to do it that way,
rather than adding a new column? This will break clients that are
looking at relistemp. Maybe there aren't any, but I wouldn't bet on
that, and it doesn't seem like you're buying a lot by creating this
incompatibility. I would also argue that temp-ness is a distinct
concept from logged-ness.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-14 01:07:52 | Re: POSIX shared memory redux |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-14 00:54:11 | Re: unlogged tables |