Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2012-07-17T17:26:43Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> BTW, I wonder whether the code that checks for relfilenode conflict >> when selecting a pg_class or relfilenode OID tries both file naming >> conventions? If not, should we make it do so? > I don't believe it does, nor do I see what we would gain by making it to do so. What we would gain is ensuring that we aren't using the same relfilenode for both a regular table and a temp table. Do you really want to assume that such a conflict is 100% safe? It sounds pretty scary to me, and even if we were sure the backend would never get confused, what about client-side code that's looking at relfilenode? regards, tom lane
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Include the backend ID in the relpath of temporary relations.
- debcec7dc31a 9.1.0 cited