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

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions

From: Michael Robinson <robinson(at)netrinsics(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions
Date: 1999-11-30 03:44:58
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I have to say that I'm going to change on-disk database/table/index 
>> file names to _OID_! This is required by WAL because of inside of 
>> log records there will be just database/table/index oids, not names, 
>> and after crash recovery will not be able to read pg_class to get 
>> database/table/index name using oid ...
>Wow, that is a major pain.  Anyone else think so?

Consider had Vadim made this proposal (set the time-travel machine to 
version 7.1.2 or so):

	"I'm going to remove WAL from Postgres, so that we can use
	 the table name as the filename for the table on disk."

So, no, rather than being a major pain, I'd classify it as a minor
inconvenience.  If it becomes, in fact, a major pain, one can always
write a two-line psql script that prints a table name, given an oid.

On an unrelated matter, I haven't been following the "limit elimination"
effort as closely as I should have.  Is it now possible to compile Postgres
with 16Kb tuple size, and insert/select 15Kb text fields from the tuples?

	-Michael Robinson


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1999-11-30 03:54:37
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] UNION not allowed in sub-selects?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1999-11-30 03:28:45
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] A bag of psql goodies

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group