| From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)seiren(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB" <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | RE: File versioning (was: Big 7.1 open items) |
| Date: | 2000-06-26 10:08:54 |
| Message-ID: | EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJEEFFCCAA.Inoue@seiren.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB
>
> > Besides which, OID alone doesn't give us a possibility of file
> > versioning, and as I commented to Vadim I think we will want that,
> > WAL or no WAL. So it seems to me the two viable choices are
> > unique-id or OID+version-number. Either way, the file-naming behavior
> > should be the same across all platforms.
>
> I do not think the only problem of a failing rename of "temp" to "new"
> on startup rollforward is issue enough to justify the additional
> complexity
> a version implys.
Hmm,I've always mentioned about usual rollback and never mentioned
about rollforward on this topic AFAIR. Could you tell me what you mean
by * on startup rollforward* ?
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-06-26 10:13:14 | physical backup of PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-06-26 10:08:26 | RE: Big 7.1 open items |