> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org]On
> Behalf Of Chris Bitmead
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > > Also, you said before that an old relname (after rename) is worse than
> > > none at all. I couldn't agree more.
> >
> > I'm not the one who wants relnames in the physical names ;-). However,
> > this implementation mechanism will support either policy choice ---
> > original relname in the filename, or just a numeric ID for the filename
> > --- and that seems like a good sign to me.
> >
> > > Why not use OID.[SEGMENT.]VERSION for the physical relname (different
> > > order possible)?
>
> Unless VERSION is globally unique like an oid is, having RELNAME.VERSION
> would be a problem if you created a table with the same name as a
> recently renamed table.
>
In my proposal(relname+unique-id),the unique-id is globally unique
and relname is only for dba's convenience. I've said many times that
we should be free from the rule of file naming as far as possible.
I myself don't mind the name of relation files except that they should
be globally unique. I had to propose my opinion for file naming
because people have been so enthusiastic about globally_not_unique
file naming.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp