On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 11:21:15PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Well, we did have someone do a test implementation of oid file names,
> and their report was that is looked pretty ugly.
That someone would be me. Did my mails from this morning fall into a black
hole? I've got a patch that does either oid filenames or relname_<oid>,
take your pick. It doesn't do tablespaces, just leaves the files where
they are. TO do relname_<oid>, I add a relphysname field to pg_class.
I'll update it to current and throw it at the PATCHES list this weekend,
unless someone more central wants to do tablespaces first. I tried
out rollinging back ALTER TABLE RENAME. Works fine. Biggest problem
with it is that I played silly buggers with the relcache for no good
reason. Hiroshi stripped that out and said it works fone, otherwise. I
also haven't touched DROP TABLE yet. The physical file be deleted at
transaction commit time, then? Hmm, we're the 'things to do at commit'
queue?
> convinced it has to be done, we can get started. I guess I was waiting
> for Vadim's storage manager, where the whole idea of separate files is
> going to go away anyway, I suspect. We would then have to re-write all
> our admin tools for the new format.
Any strong objections to the mixed relname_oid solution? It gets us
everything oids does, and still lets Bruce use 'ls -l' to find the big
tables, putting off writing any admin tools that'll need to be rewritten,
anyway.
Ross
--
Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu>
NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer
Computer and Information Technology Institute
Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005