Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: RE: [HACKERS] CLASSOID patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: "Chris Bitmead" <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com>, "Postgres Hackers List" <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, "pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-patches(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RE: [HACKERS] CLASSOID patch
Date: 2000-06-26 03:18:12
Message-ID: 11807.961989492@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> The points I've noticed are the following.
> 1) It seems not preferable to add an entry *relation* which is of
>     Relation type in HeapTupleData. Relation OID seems to be
>     sufficient for your purpose.

I haven't looked at the patch at all yet, but I agree 100% with
Hiroshi on this point.  Relation is a pointer to a relcache entry
and relcache entries are *volatile*.  If all you need is the OID
then store the OID --- don't open Pandora's box by assuming the
relcache entry will never disappear before your tuple value does.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Chris BitmeadDate: 2000-06-26 03:24:56
Subject: Re: CLASSOID patch
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-06-26 03:07:56
Subject: Re: About the pid and opts files

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Chris BitmeadDate: 2000-06-26 03:24:56
Subject: Re: CLASSOID patch
Previous:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2000-06-26 02:51:01
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] CLASSOID patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group