| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Hiroshi Inoue'" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | "'Zeugswetter Andreas SB'" <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, "'hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Status of new relation file naming |
| Date: | 2000-09-14 23:36:14 |
| Message-ID: | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A23018CC5@SECTORBASE1 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Rename... Why would we need in rename with OID filenames?
>
> Andreas seems to refer to in place replacement of OID files e.g.
> using your *relink*.
Sorry, I've messed things for myself.
Ok. In short, I vote for UNIQUE_ID (unrelated to pg_class.oid) file names.
I think that it's better to implement this (but neither OID nor OID.VERSION)
right now
because of this is like what we'll have in new smgr -
tablespace_id.relation_file_node.
Pg_class' OID is kind of logical things, totaly unrelated to the issue
how/where to
store relation file.
Please comment ASAP.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-09-14 23:38:39 | RE: strange behaviour (bug) |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-09-14 23:11:51 | Re: Status of new relation file naming |