| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: What is an item pointer, anyway? |
| Date: | 2019-05-13 19:37:59 |
| Message-ID: | 9915.1557776279@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 1:14 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>> Attached draft patch adjusts code comments and error messages where a
>> line pointer is referred to as an item pointer. It turns out that this
>> practice isn't all that prevalent. Here are some specific concerns
>> that I had to think about when writing the patch, though:
> Ping? Any objections to pushing ahead with this?
Patch looks fine to me. One minor quibble: in pruneheap.c you have
/*
- * Prune specified item pointer or a HOT chain originating at that item.
+ * Prune specified line pointer or a HOT chain originating at that item.
*
* If the item is an index-referenced tuple (i.e. not a heap-only tuple),
Should "that item" also be re-worded, for consistency?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-05-13 19:50:34 | Re: PostgreSQL 12: Feature Highlights |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-13 19:33:17 | Re: PG12, PGXS and linking pgfeutils |