Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs
Date: 2021-04-30 17:55:34
Message-ID: 63ff8eb7ecf64fa25000903a95d92775d8a57b34.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2021-04-30 at 12:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> ISTM that would be up to the index AM. We'd need some interlocks on
> which index AMs could be used with which table AMs in any case, I
> think.

I'm not sure why? It seems like we should be able to come up with
something that's generic enough.

> I think the hard part may really be in places like tidbitmap.c, which
> one would wish to be AM-independent, but right now it's quite
> specific
> to heap-style TIDs. Maybe we can think of a way to parameterize it.

For my particular AM, being able to have a parameterized granularity
might be nice, but not required.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2021-04-30 17:56:08 Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2021-04-30 17:50:24 Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs