Re: InsertPgAttributeTuple() and attcacheoff

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: InsertPgAttributeTuple() and attcacheoff
Date: 2018-08-14 15:50:12
Message-ID: 681.1534261812@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> It seems to me that it would make sense if InsertPgAttributeTuple() were
> to set attcacheoff to -1 instead of taking it from the caller.

Looked this over, no objections.

I wonder whether we should set that field to -1 when we *read*
pg_attribute rows from disk, and be less fussed about what gets written
out. The only real advantage is that this'd protect us from foolish
manual changes to pg_attribute.attcacheoff entries, but that doesn't
seem negligible.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2018-08-14 15:51:10 Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partition wise join enabled.
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2018-08-14 15:38:56 Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().