| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | "'Hiroshi Inoue'" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, "'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: | 2000-09-15 00:10:50 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0009142110400.94875-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
>
> > > 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.
sounds perfect to me
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-09-15 00:11:41 | RE: Status of new relation file naming |
| Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2000-09-15 00:02:30 | RE: Status of new relation file naming |