On October 22, 2016 11:59:15 AM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> Uh, sorry. My proposal a couple of years back was to put the
>> relfilenode, not the name. I didn't notice that it was the name
>being
>> proposed here. However, now I notice that this idea doesn't solve
>the
>> problem for mapped relations.
>
>Well, as long as a catalog lookup would be required anyway, what about
>putting in the table OID?
How about storing two table names? The old and what the relation is being renamed to? We wouldn't be able to tell after
acrash which is which, but that'll usually still be helpful. Every rename would clear out the old/wrong one, and add
thetarget filename.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.