| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Extensible Rmgr for Table AMs |
| Date: | 2022-02-04 14:53:09 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYivHY9SzD3EEQtCDO+hpUJkD8TRG-gfBsLrMz7f43kJA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:48 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I guess the idea was to have a compromise between letting rmgr authors choose
> arbitrary ids to avoid any conflicts, especially with private implementations,
> without wasting too much memory. But those approaches would be pretty much
> incompatible with the current definition:
>
> +#define RM_CUSTOM_MIN_ID 128
> +#define RM_CUSTOM_MAX_ID UINT8_MAX
>
> even if you only allocate up to the max id found, nothing guarantees that you
> won't get a quite high id.
Right, which I guess raises another question: if the maximum is
UINT8_MAX, which BTW I find perfectly reasonable, why are we not just
defining this as an array of size 256? There's no point in adding code
complexity to save a few kB of memory.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-02-04 14:56:58 | Re: Extensible Rmgr for Table AMs |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-02-04 14:48:01 | Re: Extensible Rmgr for Table AMs |