Re: Non-transactional pg_class, try 2

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.