Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On Sun, 8 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > While your original patch is buggy, it's at least fixable and has
> > localized, limited impact. I don't think these schemes are safe
> > at all --- they put a great deal more weight on the semantics of
> > the filesystem than I care to do.
>
> I'm going to try this some more, because I feel that a scheme like this
> that doesn't rely on scanning pg_class and the file system would in fact
> be safer.
The current code is nice and localized and doesn't add any burden on our
existing code, which is already complicated enough. I think we either
fix checkfiles.c, or we remove it and decide it isn't worth checking for
unrefrenced files.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073