| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: making relfilenodes 56 bits |
| Date: | 2023-01-06 06:13:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-sCY=PqB8OR_a0NNQSDy0F0J8Yae+JjywkaV7DS67cYJw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 5:45 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 at 11:31, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 09:23:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Hmmm ... I'd tend to do SELECT COUNT(*) FROM. But can't we provide
> > > any actual checks on the sanity of the output? I realize that the
> > > output's far from static, but still ...
> >
> > Honestly, checking all the fields is not that exciting, but the
> > maximum I can think of that would be portable enough is something like
> > the attached. No arithmetic operators for xid limits things a bit,
> > but at least that's something.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> The patch does not apply on top of HEAD as in [1], please post a rebased patch:
>
Because of the extra WAL overhead, we are not continuing with the
patch, I will withdraw it.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vignesh C | 2023-01-06 06:16:23 | Re: A new strategy for pull-up correlated ANY_SUBLINK |
| Previous Message | vignesh C | 2023-01-06 06:07:32 | Re: Generating code for query jumbling through gen_node_support.pl |