Catalog vs. user table format (was Re: State of Beta 2) - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Ron Johnson
Subject Catalog vs. user table format (was Re: State of Beta 2)
Date
Msg-id 1064091354.14510.35.camel@haggis
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: State of Beta 2  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Catalog vs. user table format (was Re: State of Beta
List pgsql-general
On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 11:17, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> > No, I'm not suggesting no catalog changes ... wait, I might be wording
> > this wrong ... there are two changes that right now requires a
> > dump/reload, changes to the catalogs and changes to the data structures,
> > no?  Or are these effectively inter-related?
>
> Oh, what you're saying is no changes in user table format.  Yeah, we

Whew, we're finally on the same page!

So, some definitions we can agree on?
"catalog change": CREATE or ALTER a pg_* table.
"on-disk structure", a.k.a. "user table format": the way that the
tables/fields are actually stored on disk.

So, a catalog change should *not* require a dump/restore, but an
ODS/UTF change should.

Agreed?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net
Jefferson, LA USA

"they love our milk and honey, but preach about another way of living"
Merle Haggard, "The Fighting Side Of Me"


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Ron Johnson
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL versus MySQL
Next
From: "Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
Subject: Re: Catalog vs. user table format (was Re: State of Beta