Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Jim Nasby wrote: > >> It occurs to me that it might be worth embedding the relation name in the > >> free space of the first block. Most people would never notice the missing > >> 64 > >> bytes, but it would be incredibly helpful in cases like this... > > > Agreed. The problem is how to install it without breaking pg_upgrade. > > Well, that's the first problem. The second problem is how to cope with > RENAME TABLE.
Uh, sorry. My proposal a couple of years back was to put the relfilenode, not the name. I didn't notice that it was the name being proposed here. However, now I notice that this idea doesn't solve the problem for mapped relations. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
