Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> Sorry Bruce -- I understand and am sympathetic to your position, and, at
>> one time, I agreed with it. But not any more.
> I thought the most recent proposal was to just throw ~16 chars of the
> file name on the end of the file name, and that should not be used for
> anything except visibility. WAL would not need to store that. It could
> just grab the file name that matches the oid/sequence number.
But that's extra complexity in WAL, plus extra complexity in renaming
tables (if you want the filename to track the logical table name, which
I expect you would), plus extra complexity in smgr and bufmgr and other
places.
I think people are coming around to the notion that it's better to keep
these low-level operations simple, even if we need to expend more work
on high-level admin tools as a result.
But we do need to remember to expend that effort on tools! Let's not
drop the ball on that, folks.
regards, tom lane