| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | heikki(at)postgresql(dot)org (Heikki Linnakangas) |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Add relation fork support to pg_relation_size() function. |
| Date: | 2008-10-03 09:31:07 |
| Message-ID: | 87zllmuisk.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
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!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2008-10-03 11:27:50 | Re: pgsql: Add relation fork support to pg_relation_size() function. |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-10-03 08:00:16 | pgsql: Put back the copying of some of the regression test data files |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2008-10-03 11:27:50 | Re: pgsql: Add relation fork support to pg_relation_size() function. |
| Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2008-10-03 08:51:27 | Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch |