| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | "Chris Bitmead" <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com>, "Postgres Hackers List" <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, "pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-patches(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: [HACKERS] CLASSOID patch |
| Date: | 2000-06-26 03:18:12 |
| Message-ID: | 11807.961989492@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> The points I've noticed are the following.
> 1) It seems not preferable to add an entry *relation* which is of
> Relation type in HeapTupleData. Relation OID seems to be
> sufficient for your purpose.
I haven't looked at the patch at all yet, but I agree 100% with
Hiroshi on this point. Relation is a pointer to a relcache entry
and relcache entries are *volatile*. If all you need is the OID
then store the OID --- don't open Pandora's box by assuming the
relcache entry will never disappear before your tuple value does.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-06-26 03:24:56 | Re: CLASSOID patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-06-26 03:07:56 | Re: About the pid and opts files |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-06-26 03:24:56 | Re: CLASSOID patch |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-06-26 02:51:01 | RE: [HACKERS] CLASSOID patch |