On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.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?
Mostly because of the issue with unlogged tables, I suppose. If you've got a reasonable idea how to do catalog updates on restart, though, I could probably be convinced to yield to that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
