Re: making relfilenodes 56 bits

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 10:57 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 5:15 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >- It looks to me like you need to give significantly more thought to
> > > the proper way of adjusting the relfilenode-related test cases in
> > > alter_table.out.
> >
> > It seems to me that this test case is just testing whether the
> > table/child table are rewritten or not after the alter table. And for
> > that it is comparing the oid with the relfilenode, now that is not
> > possible so I think it's quite reasonable to just compare the current
> > relfilenode with the old relfilenode and if they are same the table is
> > not rewritten. So I am not sure why the original test case had two
> > cases 'own' and 'orig'. With respect to this test case they both have
> > the same meaning, in fact comparing old relfilenode with current
> > relfilenode is better way of testing than comparing the oid with
> > relfilenode.
>
> I think you're right. However, I don't really like OTHER showing up in
> the output, because that looks like a string that was chosen to be
> slightly alarming, especially given that it's in ALL CAPS. How about
> if we change 'ORIG' to 'new'?

I think you meant, rename 'OTHER' to 'new', yeah that makes sense.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com