Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes

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 17:26:43
Message-ID: 13311.1342546003@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:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 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?

> I don't believe it does, nor do I see what we would gain by making it to do so.

What we would gain is ensuring that we aren't using the same relfilenode
for both a regular table and a temp table. Do you really want to assume
that such a conflict is 100% safe? It sounds pretty scary to me, and
even if we were sure the backend would never get confused, what about
client-side code that's looking at relfilenode?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-07-17 17:38:44 Re: b-tree index search algorithms
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-07-17 17:13:07 Re: Covering Indexes