On Feb 7, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Christensen <david(at)endpoint(dot)com> writes:
>> On Feb 7, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> pg_relation_filepath(regclass) returns text
>>> which would expose the output of relpath(), ie, the $PGDATA-relative
>>> path name of the relation.
>> Should this return multiple values (text or SETOF text) for tables
>> which wrapped over the single file-limits (1GB, IIRC)? So:
>> 48372/8.5_201002061/68483/172744", "pg_tblspc/
>> 48372/8.5_201002061/68483/172744.1", etc?
> No, I'm not inclined to go there. The set of actually existing
> seems too volatile; and anyone worried about this probably can add a
> star to the end of the pathname ...
True, although it'd need to be more refined than just *, as you'd need
to be careful to only pick up those related to the actual relid:
"172744", "172744.1", etc, and not those with a common prefix:
"1727441", "1727441.1", etc. (common prefix). If that needs to be
someone else's problem, makes sense here.
End Point Corporation
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2010-02-07 19:50:05|
|Subject: Re: Confusion over Python drivers|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-07 19:30:48|
|Subject: Re: Function to return whole relation path? |