> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org]On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian
>
> > > Can we *PLEASE JUST LET GO* of this bad idea? No relname in the
> > > filename. Period.
> > >
> >
> > Gee, so dogmatic. No one besides Bruce and Hiroshi discussed this _at
> > all_ when I first put up patches two month ago. O.K., I'll do the oids
> > only version (and fix up relpath_blind)
>
> Hold on. I don't think we want that work done yet. Seems even Tom is
> thinking that if Vadim is going to re-do everything later anyway, we may
> be better with a relname/oid solution that does require additional
> administration apps.
>
Hmm,why is naming rule first ?
I've never enphasized naming rule except that it should be unique.
It has been my main point to reduce the necessity of naming rule
as possible. IIRC,by keeping the stored place in pg_class,Ross's
trial patch remains only 2 places where naming rule is required.
So wouldn't we be free from naming rule(it would not be so difficult
to change naming rule if the rule is found to be bad) ?
I've also mentioned many times neither relname nor oid is sufficient
for the uniqueness. In addiiton neither relname nor oid would be
necessary for the uniqueness.
IMHO,it's bad to rely on the item which is neither necessary nor
sufficient.
I proposed relname+unique_id naming once. The unique_id is
independent from oid. The relname is only for convinience for
DBA and so we don't have to change it due to RENAME.
Db's consistency is much more important than dba's satis-
faction.
Comments ?
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp