| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
| Cc: | "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Schemas: status report, call for developers |
| Date: | 2002-05-02 14:52:44 |
| Message-ID: | 7518.1020351164@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> Is "PROC array slot number" something internal to postgres ?
Yes.
If we used PID then we'd eventually have 64K (or whatever the range of
PIDs is on your platform) different pg_temp_nnn entries cluttering
pg_namespace. But we only need MaxBackends different entries at any one
time. So the correct nnn value is 1..MaxBackends. BackendId meets the
need perfectly.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-05-02 14:54:44 | Re: Schemas: status report, call for developers |
| Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2002-05-02 14:44:45 | Re: PostgreSQL mission statement? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-05-02 14:54:44 | Re: Schemas: status report, call for developers |
| Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2002-05-02 14:28:36 | Re: Schemas: status report, call for developers |