From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes |
Date: | 2012-07-17 01:58:43 |
Message-ID: | 11429.1342490323@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> With respect to this chunk:
> + * We do not need to go through this dance for temp relations, though, because
> + * we never make WAL entries for temp rels, and so a temp rel poses no threat
> + * to the health of a regular rel that has taken over its relfilenode number.
> ...I would say that a clearer way to put this is that temporary
> relations use a different file naming convention than permanent
> relations and therefore there can never be any confusion between the
> two.
Yeah, that's an entirely independent reason why there's probably no
issue in recent releases. The rationale as stated is back-patchable
to earlier releases, though.
BTW, I wonder whether the code that checks for relfilenode conflict
when selecting a pg_class or relfilenode OID tries both file naming
conventions? If not, should we make it do so?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-07-17 02:15:35 | Re: BUG #6733: All Tables Empty After pg_upgrade (PG 9.2.0 beta 2) |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-07-17 00:35:46 | Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes |