Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Tom Lane  wrote:
> The attached patch covers everything discussed in this thread, except
> for the buggy handling of stats, which I think should be fixed in a
> separate patch since it's only relevant to 9.2+.

With respect to this chunk:

+  * We do not need to go through this dance for temp relations, though, because
+  * we never make WAL entries for temp rels, and so a temp rel poses no threat
+  * to the health of a regular rel that has taken over its relfilenode number.

...I would say that a clearer way to put this is that temporary
relations use a different file naming convention than permanent
relations and therefore there can never be any confusion between the
two.

Other than that, looks fine to me.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company