"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> One thing I did *not* like was changing the FSM API to refer to Relation
>> rather than RelFileNode --- I don't believe that's a good idea at all.
> Oh really? I'm quite fond of the new API. From a philosophical point of
> view,
Tom Lane wrote:
One thing I did *not* like was changing the FSM API to refer to Relation
rather than RelFileNode --- I don't believe that's a good idea at all.
In particular, consider what happens during TRUNCATE or CLUSTER: it's
not very clear how you'll tell the versions of the relation apart.
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> I'm not completely satisfied with the way this looks, so I'll try a
>> slightly different approach next: Instead of having one SMgrRelation per
>> fork, add an extra ForkNumber argument to all the smgr functions.
> H
