Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] CLUSTER not lose indexes

2002-07-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> (In related news, how about filling up the oid/relfilenode numbers with > >> zeros on the left, so a directory listing would reflect the numerical > >> order?) > > > Yes, hex may be interesting as a more compact, consistent format.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] CLUSTER not lose indexes

2002-07-16 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> (In related news, how about filling up the oid/relfilenode numbers with >> zeros on the left, so a directory listing would reflect the numerical >> order?) > Yes, hex may be interesting as a more compact, consistent format. We > need to change the doc

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] CLUSTER not lose indexes

2002-07-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
Curt Sampson wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > (In related news, how about filling up the oid/relfilenode numbers with > > > zeros on the left, so a directory listing would reflect the numerical > > > order?) > > > > Problem there is that we increase the size of much of t

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] CLUSTER not lose indexes

2002-07-16 Thread Curt Sampson
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > (In related news, how about filling up the oid/relfilenode numbers with > > zeros on the left, so a directory listing would reflect the numerical > > order?) > > Problem there is that we increase the size of much of the directory > lookups. Not sure

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] CLUSTER not lose indexes

2002-07-15 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It would be a lot clearer if relfilenode were replaced by an integer > version, starting at 0, and the heap files were named "OID_VERSION". The reason to not do that is that the bufmgr and levels below would now need to pass around three numbers, not

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] CLUSTER not lose indexes

2002-07-15 Thread Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Tom Lane writes: > > > > Also, is the new relfilenode somehow guaranteed to > > > not be assigned to another relation (pg_class tuple, I think)? > > > > I've been wondering about that myself. We might have to add a unique > > index on pg_class.relfilenode to ensure this

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] CLUSTER not lose indexes

2002-07-15 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes: > > Also, is the new relfilenode somehow guaranteed to > > not be assigned to another relation (pg_class tuple, I think)? > > I've been wondering about that myself. We might have to add a unique > index on pg_class.relfilenode to ensure this; otherwise, after OID > wraparound th