Tom Lane wrote:
> > Also, you said before that an old relname (after rename) is worse than
> > none at all. I couldn't agree more.
>
> I'm not the one who wants relnames in the physical names ;-). However,
> this implementation mechanism will support either policy choice ---
> original relname in the filename, or just a numeric ID for the filename
> --- and that seems like a good sign to me.
>
> > Why not use OID.[SEGMENT.]VERSION for the physical relname (different
> > order possible)?
Unless VERSION is globally unique like an oid is, having RELNAME.VERSION
would be a problem if you created a table with the same name as a
recently renamed table.