Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't believe for a moment that EDB, or anyone else competent enough
> to put in a private fork definition, can't manage to add it to enum
> ForkNumber. They'd probably be well advised to operate with a private
> setting of catversion anyway, which would ensure that installations
> using this private fork wouldn't interoperate with backends not knowing
> about it. Once you've done that there's no need to worry about
> conflicts.
Agreed.
> I have no particular objection to the .fsm idea though --- that could be
> implemented fairly simply with a lookup table while forming the file name.
Yeah, I think it's a good idea nevertheless. While users don't need to
poke around in the data directory, for those people who do, it's more
pleasant if the files have self-explanatory names.
If we go with the ".fsm" extension, we'll get "12345.fsm.1" when the FSM
grows large enough to be segmented. Does anyone have a problem with a
filename with two dots? Shouldn't be a problem, I guess.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com