| From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | RE: [HACKERS] Happy column dropping |
| Date: | 2000-01-25 01:58:43 |
| Message-ID: | 001001bf66d7$b531ba00$2801007e@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > As far as I see,fixed mapping relname to relation filename is the
> > problem. This doesn't allow the coexistence of old and new relation
> > files.
>
> Yes, and Vadim has proposed using relation OIDs as filenames for
> reasons of his own, IIRC.
>
Yes,I know it.
But I'm now inclined to generate unique relation file name each time
in order to have different file names for different versions of a same
relation oid. Without chainging relation oids,we would be to do
nothing about their attributes/constraints etc.
Anyway this must be decided after sufficient discussion.
It's not the time to do it now.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-01-25 02:05:35 | RE: [HACKERS] Well, then you keep your darn columns |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-01-25 01:57:53 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Doc updates for index cost estimator change |