Re: Map forks (WIP)

"Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> One thing I did *not* like was changing the FSM API to refer to Relation
>> rather than RelFileNode --- I don't believe that's a good idea at all.

> Oh really? I'm quite fond of the new API. From a philosophical point of
> view, in the new world order, the FSM is an integral part of a relation,
> not something tacked on the physical layer.

So? When you have two live versions of a relation, it's still going to
be necessary to track their free state separately.

> Besides, Relation contains a bunch of very handy fields.

This just sounds like you're looking for ways to commit layering
violations. The reason we invented SMgrRelation in the first place
was to get the low-level routines out of dealing with Relation, and
I'm not eager to undo that effort.

regards, tom lane