OK.understand. I'll exclude relkind IN( 's' , 'c' ) file in backup set. THANKS Qingqing Zhou & tom lane!
Tom Lane wrote: > "Qingqing Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>Pg_xactlock is always there as a special relation. > > > pg_xactlock isn't really a relation. The way I think about it is that > it's a dummy entry in pg_class that exists to reserve a relation OID > for a specific purpose --- namely, we can lock transaction IDs by > locking what would otherwise be a page of that relation. > > There was some talk recently about reorganizing the locktag design > so that transaction lock tags would be clearly distinguishable from > any lock associated with a relation. If we got that done, there'd > be no need for the pg_xactlock entry at all. > > >>I am not sure about 'c'. > > > 'c' entries in pg_class are for composite types. They don't have > any associated disk storage either. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > -- ---------------------------------------- Katsuhiko Okano [EMAIL PROTECTED] NTT Software Corp. (division "NBRO-PT6") ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
