Re: Status of new relation file naming

> > > stock answer "we look forward to seeing patches to correct this
> > > problem" :)
> >
> > The problem is that I have no idea how to suggest writing such a tool
> > that fits all needs.
>
> IMHO, we have a choice ... we either move forward with a change that I
> *believe* everyone agrees has to happen, which will prompt someone to come
> up with a solution to (again, what I believe) is the only drawback ... or,
> we don't implement while waiting for someone to come up with a solution
> ...
>
> if we wait, again, IMHO, it will never happen, since there is no impetus
> for someone to "fix the problem" ...
>
> depending on what it takes to implement, if we implement it now, that
> leaves ~1.5mos for someone to come up with a solution before release ...

Well, we are 18 days from beta. Do we think we can handle that at this
time? If so, let's do it. I guess my hope was that WAL could record
the file/version# name in its logs, and use those to find the files,
rather than making the file names themselves just numbers, but I know
some thought that there was a chick-and-egg problem in doing that.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026