Re: including backend ID in relpath of temp rels - updated patch

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> The above scenario is only a risk if you suppose that dropping a
>>> relation that lacks physical storage will nonetheless result in
>>> attempted unlink()s.  I think that that's probably not the case;
>
>> Why?  How would we know that it didn't have physical storage prior to
>> attempting the unlinks?
>
> From the relkind.

Oh, sure, I agree with you in that specific case.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company