On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Hmm. I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to get rid of the range
>>> checks in BufferIsValid, or better convert them into Asserts. It seems
>>> less than intuitive that BufferIsValid and BufferIsInvalid aren't simple
>> Seems reasonable. It would break if anyone is using an out-of-range
>> buffer number in lieu of InvalidBuffer, but I doubt that anyone is.
> Yeah, I find that unlikely as well. But leaving Asserts in place would
> tell us.
OK. Should I go do that, or are you all over it?
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andres Freund||Date: 2011-10-28 19:33:16|
|Subject: Re: fstat vs. lseek|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-10-28 19:27:36|
|Subject: Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now? |