On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:45:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2013-05-03 12:10:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Right. The whole thing is just a kluge, which I'm convinced we'll > >> regret sooner or later --- probably sooner. > > > I tentatively agree as well. The only argument for introducing some > > additional location for such information is that it would be the start > > of an infrastructure for information we would need for incrementally > > adding checksums, page upgrades and such. > > It's possible that a metadata fork would be a good design for such > stuff, but I'd want to see a pretty completely worked-out design before > committing to the idea. In any case we're way too late in the 9.3 cycle > to be considering something like that right now.
Yes, I think the big question is how much information do we want per relation that we don't need in the system tables. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
