Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Yes, good point about pg_shadow. They don't have databases. How do we
> > get multiple pg_class tables in the same directory? Is the
> > pg_class.relversion file a number like 1,2,3,4, or does it come out of
> > some global counter like oid. If so, we could put them in the same
> > directory.
> I think we could get away with insisting that each database store its
> pg_class and friends in a separate tablespace (physically distinct
> directory) from any other database. That gets around the OID conflict.
> It's still an open question whether OID+version is better than
> unique-ID for naming files that belong to different versions of the
> same relation. I can see arguments on both sides.
I don't stick to unique-ID. My main point has always been the
transactional control of file allocation change.
However *VERSION(_ID)* may be misleading because it couldn't
mean the version of pg_class tuples.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: The Hermit Hacker||Date: 2000-06-28 01:18:54|
|Subject: Re: Mailing List Archive Problem?|
|Previous:||From: Giles Lean||Date: 2000-06-27 22:48:52|
|Subject: Re: AW: Proposal: More flexible backup/restore via pg_dump |