Where are we in subj?
Oid.version or UniqueId?
If noone is going to implement it soon then I'll have to
change code to OID file naming for WAL.

Vadim

Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:12:03 -0700
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>
Status of new relation file naming
[ Charset KOI8-R unsupported, converting... ]
> Where are we in subj?
> Oid.version or UniqueId?
> If noone is going to implement it soon then I'll have to
> change code to OID file naming for WAL.

Well, we can move to one of these, but we need tools so people can find
the real table names that go with the files, and even then, it will
never be as good as the system we currently have.

My idea was to append a version number or oid on to the end of the file
name, and use that somehow.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:31:44 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Status of new relation file naming
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> [ Charset KOI8-R unsupported, converting... ]
> > Where are we in subj?
> > Oid.version or UniqueId?
> > If noone is going to implement it soon then I'll have to
> > change code to OID file naming for WAL.
> 
> Well, we can move to one of these, but we need tools so people can find
> the real table names that go with the files, and even then, it will
> never be as good as the system we currently have.

I thought it was generally agreed that this wasn't a requirement, and that
is someone felt it was required in the future, like any open source
project, they could ante up the time to build it ...



Tue, 12 Sep 2000 17:59:56 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Status of new relation file naming
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > [ Charset KOI8-R unsupported, converting... ]
> > > Where are we in subj?
> > > Oid.version or UniqueId?
> > > If noone is going to implement it soon then I'll have to
> > > change code to OID file naming for WAL.
> > 
> > Well, we can move to one of these, but we need tools so people can find
> > the real table names that go with the files, and even then, it will
> > never be as good as the system we currently have.
> 
> I thought it was generally agreed that this wasn't a requirement, and that
> is someone felt it was required in the future, like any open source
> project, they could ante up the time to build it ...

Well, if we release 7.1 without those tools, we can expect lots of
complaints.


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Tue, 12 Sep 2000 17:02:16 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Status of new relation file naming
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 
> > > [ Charset KOI8-R unsupported, converting... ]
> > > > Where are we in subj?
> > > > Oid.version or UniqueId?
> > > > If noone is going to implement it soon then I'll have to
> > > > change code to OID file naming for WAL.
> > > 
> > > Well, we can move to one of these, but we need tools so people can find
> > > the real table names that go with the files, and even then, it will
> > > never be as good as the system we currently have.
> > 
> > I thought it was generally agreed that this wasn't a requirement, and that
> > is someone felt it was required in the future, like any open source
> > project, they could ante up the time to build it ...
> 
> Well, if we release 7.1 without those tools, we can expect lots of
> complaints.

stock answer "we look forward to seeing patches to correct this
problem" :)



Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:05:46 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Status of new relation file naming
> > > I thought it was generally agreed that this wasn't a requirement, and that
> > > is someone felt it was required in the future, like any open source
> > > project, they could ante up the time to build it ...
> > 
> > Well, if we release 7.1 without those tools, we can expect lots of
> > complaints.
> 
> stock answer "we look forward to seeing patches to correct this
> problem" :)

The problem is that I have no idea how to suggest writing such a tool
that fits all needs.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Tue, 12 Sep 2000 17:07:46 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Status of new relation file naming
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > > > I thought it was generally agreed that this wasn't a requirement, and that
> > > > is someone felt it was required in the future, like any open source
> > > > project, they could ante up the time to build it ...
> > > 
> > > Well, if we release 7.1 without those tools, we can expect lots of
> > > complaints.
> > 
> > stock answer "we look forward to seeing patches to correct this
> > problem" :)
> 
> The problem is that I have no idea how to suggest writing such a tool
> that fits all needs.

IMHO, we have a choice ... we either move forward with a change that I
*believe* everyone agrees has to happen, which will prompt someone to come
up with a solution to (again, what I believe) is the only drawback ... or,
we don't implement while waiting for someone to come up with a solution
...

if we wait, again, IMHO, it will never happen, since there is no impetus
for someone to "fix the problem" ...

depending on what it takes to implement, if we implement it now, that
leaves ~1.5mos for someone to come up with a solution before release ...



Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:19:59 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Status of new relation file naming
> > > stock answer "we look forward to seeing patches to correct this
> > > problem" :)
> > 
> > The problem is that I have no idea how to suggest writing such a tool
> > that fits all needs.
> 
> IMHO, we have a choice ... we either move forward with a change that I
> *believe* everyone agrees has to happen, which will prompt someone to come
> up with a solution to (again, what I believe) is the only drawback ... or,
> we don't implement while waiting for someone to come up with a solution
> ...
> 
> if we wait, again, IMHO, it will never happen, since there is no impetus
> for someone to "fix the problem" ...
> 
> depending on what it takes to implement, if we implement it now, that
> leaves ~1.5mos for someone to come up with a solution before release ...

Well, we are 18 days from beta.  Do we think we can handle that at this
time?  If so, let's do it.  I guess my hope was that WAL could record
the file/version# name in its logs, and use those to find the files,
rather than making the file names themselves just numbers, but I know
some thought that there was a chick-and-egg problem in doing that.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Tue, 12 Sep 2000 17:24:34 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Status of new relation file naming
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > > > stock answer "we look forward to seeing patches to correct this
> > > > problem" :)
> > > 
> > > The problem is that I have no idea how to suggest writing such a tool
> > > that fits all needs.
> > 
> > IMHO, we have a choice ... we either move forward with a change that I
> > *believe* everyone agrees has to happen, which will prompt someone to come
> > up with a solution to (again, what I believe) is the only drawback ... or,
> > we don't implement while waiting for someone to come up with a solution
> > ...
> > 
> > if we wait, again, IMHO, it will never happen, since there is no impetus
> > for someone to "fix the problem" ...
> > 
> > depending on what it takes to implement, if we implement it now, that
> > leaves ~1.5mos for someone to come up with a solution before release ...
> 
> Well, we are 18 days from beta.  Do we think we can handle that at this
> time?  

My feeling was that the implementation was pretty much decided upon, it
was just a matter of saying "go ahead, do it" ... so, "go ahead, do
it" ... we have 18 days before beta, and then another 30 or so until
release, which should have us releasing, what, around Jan 1, 2001? :)



Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:32:26 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Status of new relation file naming
> > > depending on what it takes to implement, if we implement it now, that
> > > leaves ~1.5mos for someone to come up with a solution before release ...
> > 
> > Well, we are 18 days from beta.  Do we think we can handle that at this
> > time?  
> 
> My feeling was that the implementation was pretty much decided upon, it
> was just a matter of saying "go ahead, do it" ... so, "go ahead, do
> it" ... we have 18 days before beta, and then another 30 or so until
> release, which should have us releasing, what, around Jan 1, 2001? :)

Yes, Jan 1 would be my guess.  My only question is whether we are making
things harder for administrators and whether putting some smarts in WAL
to keep readable file names would be easier.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Tue, 12 Sep 2000 17:35:30 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Status of new relation file naming
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > > > depending on what it takes to implement, if we implement it now, that
> > > > leaves ~1.5mos for someone to come up with a solution before release ...
> > > 
> > > Well, we are 18 days from beta.  Do we think we can handle that at this
> > > time?  
> > 
> > My feeling was that the implementation was pretty much decided upon, it
> > was just a matter of saying "go ahead, do it" ... so, "go ahead, do
> > it" ... we have 18 days before beta, and then another 30 or so until
> > release, which should have us releasing, what, around Jan 1, 2001? :)
> 
> Yes, Jan 1 would be my guess.  My only question is whether we are making
> things harder for administrators and whether putting some smarts in WAL
> to keep readable file names would be easier.

guess we'll find out ... considering what I've seen of Oracle and its
layouts, I doubt we're making anything harder then most are used to :)

now, guess the next question is ... who is the one implementing this and
how soon can we get it in place?


Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:42:14 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Status of new relation file naming