Re: table AM option passing

From: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: table AM option passing
Date: 2026-03-17 19:47:22
Message-ID: 202603171944.2qugoabbkfqr@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Nathan, thanks for looking,

On 2026-Mar-17, Nathan Bossart wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 05:50:41PM +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote:

> > (This change is vaguely similar to b7271aa1d71a, except I used 'int'
> > instead of 'bits32', to keep the interface consistent with the existing
> > heap_insert() one. Maybe I should make all three take bits64 instead?
> > We don't actually have that type at present, so I'd have to add that
> > too.)
>
> Why bits64 and not bits32? I must be missing something.

augh, that's just a thinko -- yeah, we could use bits32 here and that
wouldn't represent a reduction in number of possible flags.

Does anybody oppose changing table_tuple_insert() to use bits32 instead
of integer for the 'options' argument?

--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"I dream about dreams about dreams", sang the nightingale
under the pale moon (Sandman)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2026-03-17 19:49:39 Re: Emitting JSON to file using COPY TO
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2026-03-17 19:32:44 Re: EXPLAIN: showing ReadStream / prefetch stats