| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, 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: | 2021-05-06 03:39:03 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYz03YnWqibd0souQ=NzWQHj2ER-Ck0-arkcJhSryE0_g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:53 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-05-06 at 03:26 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > How hard would it be to declare TID as current ItemPointerData with
> > some values prohibited (NULL, SpecTokenOffsetNumber = 0xfffe,
> > MovedPartitionsOffsetNumber = 0xfffd, presumably also 0xffff ?).
>
> I don't think there's consensus in this thread that we want to do that,
> but I'd be fine with it.
>
> It's possible but not trivial. tidbitmap.c would be the biggest
> challenge, I think.
I think that would be fine, too. I don't think it's the ideal
situation, but it seems like a clear improvement over what we have
now. We might want to reserve a few values for future projects that
might need distinguished values like SpecTokenOffsetNumber or
MovedPartitionsOffsetNumber, though, so we don't completely box
ourselves into a corner.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2021-05-06 03:43:17 | Re: pg_receivewal makes a bad daemon |
| Previous Message | Japin Li | 2021-05-06 03:37:59 | Re: Identify missing publications from publisher while create/alter subscription. |