RE: RE: [PATCHES] relation filename patch

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross J. Reedstrom [mailto:reedstrm(at)wallace(dot)ece(dot)rice(dot)edu]
> >
> > I didn't see what you did here, but I doubt that it was the right thing.
>
> Probably not: this is my first extensive digging into the backend code.
> And the whole reason this is a 'lets try and implement somne of this,
> and go back to the discussion' patch, instead of a proposed addition.
>
> In defense of what I _did_: The temp table relname hacking is still
> in place, and seems to work, and could be left in place.

Yes,pararell regression tests all pass here if relacache hashes
on pg_class entry name.

> However, I
> knew that relname would not stay unique, once schema are implemented,
> but physrelname would (since the smgr needs it).
>

It is dangerous to combine logical and physical concepts.
So it seems difficult to use physrelname both as a storage location
and as an unique relation name.

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp