On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:45:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 2013-05-03 12:10:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Right. The whole thing is just a kluge, which I'm convinced we'll
> >> regret sooner or later --- probably sooner.
>
> > I tentatively agree as well. The only argument for introducing some
> > additional location for such information is that it would be the start
> > of an infrastructure for information we would need for incrementally
> > adding checksums, page upgrades and such.
>
> It's possible that a metadata fork would be a good design for such
> stuff, but I'd want to see a pretty completely worked-out design before
> committing to the idea. In any case we're way too late in the 9.3 cycle
> to be considering something like that right now.
Yes, I think the big question is how much information do we want per
relation that we don't need in the system tables.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +