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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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

Browse pgsql-patches by date

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