| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jacky Leng <lengjianquan(at)163(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled |
| Date: | 2007-10-18 14:39:55 |
| Message-ID: | 23216.1192718395@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> What is the argument against making relfilenodes globally unique by adding the
> xid and epoch of the creating transaction to the filename?
1. Zero chance of ever backpatching. (I know I said I wasn't excited
about that, but it's still a strike against a proposed fix.)
2. Adds new fields to RelFileNode, which will be a major code change,
and possibly a noticeable performance hit (bigger hashtable keys).
3. Adds new columns to pg_class, which is a real PITA ...
4. Breaks oid2name and all similar code that knows about relfilenode.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-18 14:45:29 | Re: max_prepared_transactions default ... why 5? |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-10-18 14:39:20 | Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-18 14:51:18 | Re: Crosstab Problems |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-10-18 14:39:20 | Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled |