| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: making relfilenodes 56 bits |
| Date: | 2022-08-24 10:02:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KsADzaCwDV7abWOWrEW18GjcHuz0e-LJXm+qfM5w-x7A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 3:28 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 3:16 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > One more thing we may want to think about is what if there are tables
> > created by extension? For example, I think BDR creates some tables
> > like node_group, conflict_history, etc. Now, I think if such an
> > extension is created by default, both old and new clusters will have
> > those tables. Isn't there a chance of relfilenumber conflict in such
> > cases?
>
> Shouldn't they behave as a normal user table? because before upgrade
> anyway new cluster can not have any table other than system tables and
> those tables created by an extension should also be restored as other
> user table does.
>
Right.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mahendrakar s | 2022-08-24 10:07:01 | Re: Stack overflow issue |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-08-24 10:01:07 | Re: making relfilenodes 56 bits |