Re: Representation of redirected line pointers in HOT

Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> > LP_UNUSED 0
> > LP_NORMAL 1
> > LP_REDIRECT 2
> > LP_DEAD 3
>
> > This seems hardly any uglier than the way the code stands today, and
> > certainly a lot less ugly than what the current HOT patch proposes.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> If I understand correctly this still leaves open the possibility of
> implementing in the future "quick pruning" as we've been speculating about. We
> could represent that with a line pointer which is LP_DEAD but still has a
> length and offset. I'm not sure we need to do it now but I'll be glad if we
> aren't foreclosing the possibility.
>
> These kinds of rethinks are typical of the tension between someone writing a
> patch to submit for review, where they often want to keep the lines of code
> changed to a minimum to avoid conflicts and to avoid giving reviewers extra
> code to read which, and normal code maintenance.

Yes, good point. This is why I am glad Tom can give it a full review.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +