Re: including backend ID in relpath of temp rels - updated patch

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The above scenario is only a risk if you suppose that dropping a
>> relation that lacks physical storage will nonetheless result in
>> attempted unlink()s. �I think that that's probably not the case;

> Why?  How would we know that it didn't have physical storage prior to
> attempting the unlinks?

From the relkind.
        regards, tom lane