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

Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block
Date: 2000-03-08 04:53:53
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > If we do it that way, then RENAME TABLE will be kinda complicated...
> > not impossible, but is it worth it?
> You know, I really hate to disagree with Bruce, but, Tom, you have a point.
> IMHO, the benefits of having tables named by OID are going to be numerous --
> the schema idea included.  Of course, Bruce's concerns are good concerns as
> well. What to do......
> Why not do this:
> Let the tables be named by OID, and only OID.  Then, for admins' convenience,
> put in a flat file that is updated periodically, similarly to pg_pwd being a
> flat text dump of pg_shadow.  Since there's going to have to be a system
> table mapping table names to OID's anyway, a flat dump of said system table
> should be similarly done as pg_pwd.  Call it pg_realnames or something.  Have
> it have two columns: OID, and pathname (relative to PGDATA) of table.
> This would help admins who might want to restore single tables -- as long as
> they have a snapshot of pg_realnames at the same time each table is dumped,
> then a restore of pg_realnames into a temp dir, then the actual table can be
> restored in by its OID (of course, its OID might have changed in the interim,
> but you would simply restore it on top of the OID that that table now maps to).
> Besides, the OID for the table itself is not likely to change often.
> Bruce, would this allay some of your (entirely valid) concerns?  (I read the
> thread about this the first time around, when Vadim said the tbale names
> _would_ go to OID's.)

I will fight this to my death.  :-)

I have cursed Ingres every time I needed to look at the Ingres data
directory to find out which tables match which files.  Even a lookup
file is a pain.  Right now, I can do ls -l to see which tables are
taking disk space.  

Considering the number of times administrators have to do this, it is a
pain.  It is only lazy database internals programmers that would advance
an oid-only file name concept.  FYI, Informix SE uses this the
tablename_oid concept in their implementation.

Keeping that flat file in sync with the database will be a royal pain. 
Imagine the concurrency problems keeping it up to date.

Guess everyone knows where I stand on this one.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-03-08 05:07:30
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 'LIKE' enhancement suggestion
Previous:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2000-03-08 03:03:11
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] xlog.c.patch for cygwin port.

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