Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled

Tom Lane wrote:
> "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.

Ah, Ok. I was under the impression that relfilenode in pg_class is a string of
some kind. In that case only GetNewRelFileNode would have needed patching...
But that is obviously not the case, as I realized now :-(

Thanks for setting me straight ;-)

regards, Florian Pflug