| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleanup: avoid direct use of ip_posid/ip_blkid |
| Date: | 2017-03-02 16:25:21 |
| Message-ID: | f41a81e3-1849-dad1-d2c6-9e9ac0e4d056@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/22/17 08:38, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> One reason why these macros are not always used is because they
> typically do assert-validation to ensure ip_posid has a valid value.
> There are a few places in code, especially in GIN and also when we are
> dealing with user-supplied TIDs when we might get a TID with invalid
> ip_posid. I've handled that by defining and using separate macros which
> skip the validation. This doesn't seem any worse than what we are
> already doing.
I wonder why we allow that. Shouldn't the tid type reject input that
has ip_posid == 0?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jon Nelson | 2017-03-02 16:26:59 | Re: Faster methods for getting SPI results |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-03-02 16:24:10 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers |