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

You'll lose all you would buy as soon as we'll begin to store many
relations in single file... and I would like to implement this in 7.1

Vadim

Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:40:05 -0700
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>
RE: Status of new relation file naming
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> > My idea was to append a version number or oid on to the end 
> > of the file name, and use that somehow.
> 
> You'll lose all you would buy as soon as we'll begin to store many
> relations in single file... and I would like to implement this in 7.1

Yes, that is the key.  You want to implement a new storage manager, so
if that is coming, we may as well take the hit now.

-- 
  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 20:41:45 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Status of new relation file naming
"Mikheev, Vadim" wrote:
> 
> > My idea was to append a version number or oid on to the end
> > of the file name, and use that somehow.
> 
> You'll lose all you would buy as soon as we'll begin to store many
> relations in single file...

Perhaps we could then use the name of DATASPACE = filename ?

Or will the fact that some relations are stored in the same file 
be completely invisible to the user ?

> and I would like to implement this in 7.1

Will this new storage manager replace the current one or will one be 
able to choose which storage manager to use (at compile time, at 
startup, for each table)?

PostgreSQL started as an extensible ORDBMS, but IIRC at some stage 
all other SMs were thrown out.

I don't think it would be a good idea to completely abandon the 
notion of storage manager as a replacable component.


OTOH, the idea of storing single-inheritance hierarchies 
(SQL3 CREATE UNDER) in one file would almost automatically get us 
many benefits, like shared primary keys and automatic index inheriting.

--------------
Hannu

Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:44:42 +0300
Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
Re: Status of new relation file naming
At 09:44 13/09/00 +0300, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>"Mikheev, Vadim" wrote:
>> 
>> > My idea was to append a version number or oid on to the end
>> > of the file name, and use that somehow.
>> 
>> You'll lose all you would buy as soon as we'll begin to store many
>> relations in single file...
>
>Perhaps we could then use the name of DATASPACE = filename ?
>

I don't want to (re)^n ignite the the debate, but file naming has been
discussed many times before and my recollection of the result of the last
debate was that the names should either be random or OID based. It seems
that adding a different meaning to filenames at this stage would be a bad
idea, and doom us to repeat the file naming debate again in a year or two.

My vote is for a random number, and then someone can write the tools to
display the file info. I'll even volunteer to work on them...




----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498)          |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81         |                 _________  \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82         |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|
                                 |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/

Wed, 13 Sep 2000 19:02:22 +1000
Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>
Re: Status of new relation file naming