Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions
От | Michael Robinson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 199911300344.LAA01830@netrinsics.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: >> I have to say that I'm going to change on-disk database/table/index >> file names to _OID_! This is required by WAL because of inside of >> log records there will be just database/table/index oids, not names, >> and after crash recovery will not be able to read pg_class to get >> database/table/index name using oid ... > >Wow, that is a major pain. Anyone else think so? Consider had Vadim made this proposal (set the time-travel machine to version 7.1.2 or so): "I'm going to remove WAL from Postgres, so that we can use the table name as the filename for the table on disk." So, no, rather than being a major pain, I'd classify it as a minor inconvenience. If it becomes, in fact, a major pain, one can always write a two-line psql script that prints a table name, given an oid. On an unrelated matter, I haven't been following the "limit elimination" effort as closely as I should have. Is it now possible to compile Postgres with 16Kb tuple size, and insert/select 15Kb text fields from the tuples? -Michael Robinson
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: