On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 10:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 10:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> the assumption that the file is less than one disk block, > >> it should be just as atomic as pg_control updates are. > > > IIRC there were 173 relations affected by this. 4 bytes each we would > > have more than 512 bytes. > > Where in the world did you get that number? > > There are currently 29 shared relations (counting indexes), and 13 > nailed local relations, which would go into a different map file. > I'm not sure if the set of local catalogs requiring the map treatment > is exactly the same as what's presently nailed, but that's probably > a good approximation.
I was suggesting that we only do shared and nailed relations. Sounds like you agree. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
