| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Page OpaqueData |
| Date: | 2002-06-24 16:53:42 |
| Message-ID: | 19611.1024937622@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> writes:
> Is od_pagesize in any way more or less opaque than pd_lower, pd_upper,
> pd_special, etc? If it is, why?
I surmise that there was once some idea of supporting multiple page
sizes simultaneously, but it's not real clear why the macros
PageGetPageSize/PageSetPageSize wouldn't be a sufficient abstraction
layer; the extra level of struct naming for pd_opaque has no obvious
usefulness. In any case I doubt that dealing with multiple page sizes
would be worth the trouble it would be to support.
> If it's not, should I post a patch that puts pagesize directly into
> PageHeaderData?
If you're so inclined. Given that pd_opaque is hidden in those macros,
there wouldn't be much of any gain in readability either, so I haven't
worried about changing the declaration.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-06-24 17:11:01 | Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-06-24 16:49:21 | Re: Use of LOCAL in SET command |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-06-24 17:39:09 | Re: show() function |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-06-24 16:36:36 | Re: show() function |