| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs |
| Date: | 2021-05-05 17:21:58 |
| Message-ID: | 2d8ce12170ce37ab42b7bb5860df63f2b38bbf09.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2021-05-05 at 08:50 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> There just isn't that
> many table AM TID designs that could ever work, and even among those
> schemes that could ever work there is a pretty clear hierarchy. This
> blue sky thinking about generalizing TIDs 2 years in seems *weird* to
> me.
I am happy to keep table AM discussions concrete, as I have plenty of
concrete problems which I would like to turn into proposals.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2021-05-05 17:23:01 | Re: COPY table_name (single_column) FROM 'unknown.txt' DELIMITER E'\n' |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-05-05 17:15:16 | Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs |