Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Um, wait, it's *not* in pg_class now, and what I was about to do was
>> go put it there. Is there a typo in the above para, or are you saying
>> you don't like either approach? If the latter, what concept have you
>> got for an eventual implementation?
> If we're going to have it at all, I'd like to make it a flag in the
> page header on page 0, or maybe have a dedicated metapage that stores
> that detail, and perhaps other things.
I cannot say that I find that idea attractive; the biggest problem with
it being that updating such a state flag will be nontransactional,
unless we go to a lot of effort to support rollbacks. ISTM that the
scannability property is a perfectly normal relation property and as
such *ought* to be in the pg_class row, or at worst some other catalog
entry. Why do you think differently?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
