Hm, I wonder if we should have made the forks use a fork "name" instead of a
number. It sure would be nicer to have files name 12345.fsm instead of another
opaque number.

The other reason I thought of this is that if EDB or anyone else uses forks
for a private purpose then it would avoid the whole issue of conflicts. The
best option right now would be to set aside a range of values for private
purposes.

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com
  Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services!

In response to

• pgsql: Add relation fork support to pg_relation_size() function. at 2008-10-03 07:33:11 from Heikki Linnakangas

Responses

• Re: pgsql: Add relation fork support to pg_relation_size() function. at 2008-10-03 11:27:50 from Marko Kreen

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Marko Kreen	Date: 2008-10-03 11:27:50
	Subject: Re: pgsql: Add relation fork support to pg_relation_size() function.
Previous:	From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner	Date: 2008-10-03 08:51:27
	Subject: Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: Marko Kreen	Date: 2008-10-03 11:27:50
	Subject: Re: pgsql: Add relation fork support to pg_relation_size() function.
Previous:	From: Peter Eisentraut	Date: 2008-10-03 08:00:16
	Subject: pgsql: Put back the copying of some of the regression test data files