Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block
Date
Msg-id 25458.952532156@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block  ("Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> Is it necessary to get the relation path name from the relation name/oid etc
> each time ?
> Is it bad to keep the relation path name in pg_class(or another relation) ?

Hmm, we could maybe do that for user relations, but it obviously would
not work for pg_class itself.  I'm a little worried about trying to do
it for the other critical system relations, too.  We'd want to keep the
relation's pathname in its relcache entry, so any system relation that
is read while setting up a relcache entry has to have a fixed path that
can be determined without a relcache entry.

Perhaps it would be good enough to say that all system relations live in
the database's primary directory, and only user relations have pathnames
specified in their pg_class entries.  Renaming a system table would be
a Really Bad Idea anyway ;-)
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Karel Zak - Zakkr
Date:
Subject: regex (from TODO)
Next
From: Kyle Bateman
Date:
Subject: Re: Casts in 7.0 vs 6.5 (was Re: [SQL] 7.0beta bug (or feature)?)