Darren King wrote:
>
> > > The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > > > > The lack of case-sensitivity could cause tables that start with xinv* to
> > > > > be confused as large objects.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do we do?
> > >
> > > Could the xinv* names generated by postgres to support large objects
> > > have a slightly different name, for example starting with an underscore
> > > or a dot?
> >
> > We could change large object names from xinv to _inv? That makes sense.
> > pg_dump does not process large objects.
> >
> > What do we do with 6.1? How many people have tables that begin with
> > xinv?
>
> ...and xinx for the respective index files.
>
> Since pg_ is already a "system" reserved prefix, how about pg_v[oid]
> and pg_x[oid]? Would kill two birds with one stone...would identify
> them as system tables/indexes while not clashing with user tables.
>
> This would simply the psql queries for the \d commands...would pg_dump
> be able to filter out pg_[xv][0-9]+ tables/indexes?
But we have to change at least heap_creatr/heap_destroy in this case...
As for me, using names to differentiate kind of objects is
not right way. That's why I decided don't use special names
for sequences but added new relkind. And we could use relkind
for views too, instead of scanning pg_rewrite for _RET{view_name}.
Vadim
------------------------------
