Re: including backend ID in relpath of temp rels - updated patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: including backend ID in relpath of temp rels - updated patch
Date: 2010-09-15 16:33:52
Message-ID: 8107.1284568432@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The above scenario is only a risk if you suppose that dropping a
>> relation that lacks physical storage will nonetheless result in
>> attempted unlink()s. I think that that's probably not the case;

> Why? How would we know that it didn't have physical storage prior to
> attempting the unlinks?

From the relkind.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David E. Wheeler 2010-09-15 16:45:43 Re: Basic JSON support
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-09-15 16:28:29 Re: including backend ID in relpath of temp rels - updated patch