| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>, "Thomas Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Big 7.1 open items |
| Date: | 2000-06-22 15:27:30 |
| Message-ID: | 8848.961687650@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> OK,I change my mind as follows.
> OID except cygwin,unique-id on cygwin
We don't really want to do that, do we? That's a huge difference in
behavior to have in just one port --- especially a port that none of
the primary developers use (AFAIK anyway). The cygwin port's normal
state of existence will be "broken", surely, if we go that way.
Besides which, OID alone doesn't give us a possibility of file
versioning, and as I commented to Vadim I think we will want that,
WAL or no WAL. So it seems to me the two viable choices are
unique-id or OID+version-number. Either way, the file-naming behavior
should be the same across all platforms.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Warner | 2000-06-22 16:53:34 | Proposal: More flexible backup/restore via pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-06-22 15:22:23 | Re: Big 7.1 open items |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Denis Perchine | 2000-06-22 15:40:40 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] libpq error codes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-06-22 15:17:35 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] libpq error codes |