Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Robinson
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions
Date
Msg-id 199911300344.LAA01830@netrinsics.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] A bag of psql goodies
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] UNION not allowed in sub-selects?