| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: emergency outage requiring database restart |
| Date: | 2016-10-22 18:55:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20161022185512.2w34iniicbrmts6y@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Jim Nasby wrote:
> >> It occurs to me that it might be worth embedding the relation name in the
> >> free space of the first block. Most people would never notice the missing 64
> >> bytes, but it would be incredibly helpful in cases like this...
>
> > Agreed. The problem is how to install it without breaking pg_upgrade.
>
> Well, that's the first problem. The second problem is how to cope with
> RENAME TABLE.
Uh, sorry. My proposal a couple of years back was to put the
relfilenode, not the name. I didn't notice that it was the name being
proposed here. However, now I notice that this idea doesn't solve the
problem for mapped relations.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-10-22 18:59:15 | Re: emergency outage requiring database restart |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-10-22 18:30:41 | Re: PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators |