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

Re: Non-transactional pg_class, try 2

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Non-transactional pg_class, try 2
Date: 2006-06-12 19:05:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:

> Or, set it to (0,1) and reserve that TID as a dummy entry.  What I'm
> afraid of here is scribbling on some other relation's entry.  I'd like
> to see some defense against that, don't much care what.
> We do plenty of disable-this-in-bootstrap-mode checks, so one more
> doesn't seem like a problem; so the first solution may be better.

New version of the patch, including fixes to all the feedback you
provided.  Thanks!

I used a dummy entry in (0,1), which seems cleaner to me (the
index-creation stuff in bootstrap is apparently still needed to generate
sinval messages, so it's not as easy as returning early from the
function).  Maybe we could include a step in initdb to get rid of it,
but it doesn't seem too much of an issue.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-06-12 19:06:28
Subject: Re: CSV mode option for pg_dump
Previous:From: Bill BartlettDate: 2006-06-12 19:04:55
Subject: Re: CSV mode option for pg_dump

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Greg StarkDate: 2006-06-12 21:39:08
Subject: ADD/DROPS inherits
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2006-06-12 19:01:48

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