Re: Remaining beta blockers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remaining beta blockers
Date: 2013-04-27 19:51:54
Message-ID: 10366.1367092314@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Um, wait, it's *not* in pg_class now, and what I was about to do was
>> go put it there. Is there a typo in the above para, or are you saying
>> you don't like either approach? If the latter, what concept have you
>> got for an eventual implementation?

> If we're going to have it at all, I'd like to make it a flag in the
> page header on page 0, or maybe have a dedicated metapage that stores
> that detail, and perhaps other things.

I cannot say that I find that idea attractive; the biggest problem with
it being that updating such a state flag will be nontransactional,
unless we go to a lot of effort to support rollbacks. ISTM that the
scannability property is a perfectly normal relation property and as
such *ought* to be in the pg_class row, or at worst some other catalog
entry. Why do you think differently?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Will Childs-Klein 2013-04-27 21:51:58 strange warning sign relating to storage manager
Previous Message Robert Haas 2013-04-27 19:45:41 Re: Remaining beta blockers