On Tuesday 02 March 2004 06:29, Paul Tillotson wrote:
However, for this to be useful, your table must not have any indexes,
views, foreign keys, sequences, triggers, etc., or else you must be
prepared to re-create all of them using application level code.
Which isn't a big deal is it? You can write a single function to create entire
object and it's dependency. It is one time job but can save lots of time at
I imagine this would break lots of things, but it would be nice if
instead of Shridhar's rename step (see below) one could do this:

$table1node = query("SELECT relfilenode FROM pg_class WHERE relname =
$table2node = query("SELECT relfilenode FROM pg_class WHERE relname =
exec("UPDATE pg_class SET relfilenode = $table2node WHERE relname =
exec("UPDATE pg_class SET relfilenode = $table1node WHERE relname =

You would of course need to change the relfilenode for all of the
toasted columns and indexes as well in the same atomic step, but it
seems like this might be more compatible with postgresql's MVCC model
than other ideas suggested.
I still don't understand what is not so good about rename. All the indexes
remain there. Views need updation, I agree. Missed that last time. But what
you are suggesting is a part of rename if not complete of it.

I would always prefer to let PG handle these kind of details. Not very
comfortable with mucking around catalogs especially if there exists an


Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 10 of 11 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
postedFeb 24, '04 at 4:49p
activeMar 25, '04 at 1:00p



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase