Re: Non-transactional pg_class, try 2

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Non-transactional pg_class, try 2
Date: 2006-06-12 00:03:22
Message-ID: 28527.1150070602@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I forgot to attach the new file pg_ntclass.h (src/include/catalog).
> Here it is.

Couple thoughts about this:

* I still suggest calling it pg_class_nt not pg_ntclass; that naming
convention seems like it will scale better if there are more
nontransactional "appendage" relations. I'm surprised you didn't
already need to invent pg_database_nt, for instance ... don't
datvacuumxid and datfrozenxid need to be nontransactional?

* The DATA() entries for the bootstrapped relations ought to be
commented as to which rels they belong to (corresponding to the
hardwired TIDs in pg-class.h):

DATA(insert ( 0 0 )); /* pg_type */
etc

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-06-12 00:27:23 Re: Non-transactional pg_class, try 2
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-06-11 23:54:10 Re: Extended SERIAL parsing

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-06-12 00:27:23 Re: Non-transactional pg_class, try 2
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-06-11 22:20:22 The corresponding relminxid patch; try 1