From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Make relfile tombstone files conditional on WAL level |
Date: | 2022-01-19 05:07:21 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-u6rsQEPMn8Utv9tjbHgOT0r=7fyk41TqPTcxcPp8_N1g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 7:22 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 3:47 AM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > Another problem is that relfilenodes are normally allocated with
> > GetNewOidWithIndex(), and initially match a relation's OID. We'd need
> > a new allocator, and they won't be able to match the OID in general
> > (while we have 32 bit OIDs at least).
>
> Personally I'm not sad about that. Values that are the same in simple
> cases but diverge in more complex cases are kind of a trap for the
> unwary. There's no real reason to have them ever match. Yeah, in
> theory, it makes it easier to tell which file matches which relation,
> but in practice, you always have to double-check in case the table has
> ever been rewritten. It doesn't seem worth continuing to contort the
> code for a property we can't guarantee anyway.
>
Make sense, I have started working on this idea, I will try to post the
first version by early next week.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2022-01-19 05:07:37 | Re: Schema variables - new implementation for Postgres 15 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-01-19 04:54:12 | Re: Adding CI to our tree |