Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > 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. Yeah, that's an entirely independent reason why there's probably no issue in recent releases. The rationale as stated is back-patchable to earlier releases, though. 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? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers