Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

RE: Status of new relation file naming

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Hiroshi Inoue'" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: "'Zeugswetter Andreas SB'" <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, "'hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Status of new relation file naming
Date: 2000-09-14 23:36:14
Message-ID: 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A23018CC5@SECTORBASE1 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
 
> > Rename... Why would we need in rename with OID filenames?
> 
> Andreas seems to refer to in place replacement of OID files e.g.
> using your *relink*.

Sorry, I've messed things for myself.

Ok. In short, I vote for UNIQUE_ID (unrelated to pg_class.oid) file names.
I think that it's better to implement this (but neither OID nor OID.VERSION)
right now
because of this is like what we'll have in new smgr -
tablespace_id.relation_file_node.
Pg_class' OID is kind of logical things, totaly unrelated to the issue
how/where to
store relation file.

Please comment ASAP.

Vadim

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2000-09-14 23:38:39
Subject: RE: strange behaviour (bug)
Previous:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2000-09-14 23:11:51
Subject: Re: Status of new relation file naming

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group