From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Chris Bitmead <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: OK, OK, Hiroshi's right: use a seperately-generated filename |
Date: | 2000-06-20 22:50:34 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0006201949570.1098-100000@thelab.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> Chris Bitmead <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com> writes:
> > At least on UNIX, couldn't you use a hard-link and change the name in
> > pg_class immediately? Let the brain-dead operating systems use the
> > vacuum method.
>
> Hmm ... maybe, but it doesn't seem worth the portability headache to
> me. We do have an NT port that we don't want to break, and I don't
> think RENAME TABLE is worth the trouble of testing/supporting two
> implementations.
>
> Even on Unix, aren't there filesystems that don't do hard links?
> Not that I'd recommend running Postgres on such a volume, but...
tTo the best of my knowledge, its only symlinks that aren't
(weren't?) universally supported ... somehow, I believe taht even extends
to NT ...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ryan Kirkpatrick | 2000-06-20 23:15:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for port testing on fmgr changes -- Results! |
Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-06-20 20:59:41 | RE: Big 7.1 open items |