Re: pg_class.relpages/allvisible probably shouldn't be a int4

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_class.relpages/allvisible probably shouldn't be a int4
Date: 2014-05-11 09:16:45
Message-ID: 20140511091645.GA29889@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-05-10 23:21:34 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > And adding a proper unsigned type doesn't sound like a small amount of work.
>
> Perhaps not, but it's overdue. We ought to have one.

Maybe. But there's so many things to decide around it that I don't think
it's a good prerequisite for not showing essentially corrupted values in
a supported scenario.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-05-11 09:18:42 Re: 9.5: UPDATE/DELETE .. ORDER BY .. LIMIT ..
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2014-05-11 08:33:10 Re: 9.5: UPDATE/DELETE .. ORDER BY .. LIMIT ..