Re: Big 7.1 open items
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Big 7.1 open items |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 16404.962213972@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: Big 7.1 open items ("Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes: > Why do we have to have system tables per *database* ? > Is there anything wrong with global system tables ? > And how about adding dbid to pg_class,pg_proc etc ? We could, but I think I'd vote against it on two grounds: 1. Reliability. If something corrupts pg_class, do you want to lose your whole installation, or just one database? 2. Increased locking overhead/loss of concurrency. Currently, there is very little lock contention between backends running in different databases. A shared pg_class will be a single point of locking (as well as a single point of failure) for the whole installation. It would solve the DROP DATABASE problem kind of nicely, but really it'd just be downgrading DROP DATABASE to a DROP SCHEMA operation... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: