Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Map forks (WIP)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Map forks (WIP)
Date: 2008-05-20 23:14:15
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
"Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> One thing I did *not* like was changing the FSM API to refer to Relation
>> rather than RelFileNode --- I don't believe that's a good idea at all.

> Oh really? I'm quite fond of the new API. From a philosophical point of
> view, in the new world order, the FSM is an integral part of a relation, 
> not something tacked on the physical layer.

So?  When you have two live versions of a relation, it's still going to
be necessary to track their free state separately.

> Besides, Relation contains a bunch of very handy fields.

This just sounds like you're looking for ways to commit layering
violations.  The reason we invented SMgrRelation in the first place
was to get the low-level routines out of dealing with Relation, and
I'm not eager to undo that effort.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Greg Sabino MullaneDate: 2008-05-21 00:07:58
Subject: LOCK_DEBUG documentation
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-05-20 23:09:37
Subject: Re: Simplify formatting.c

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group