| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: making relfilenodes 56 bits |
| Date: | 2022-07-05 21:02:37 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZfxMRfWW7X16TGWh1Q8taRtCb3hRTwWqY-4_XiQCYYKw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 4:33 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I thought about this comment from Robert
> > that's not quite the same as either of those things. For example, in
> > tableam.h we currently say "This callback needs to create a new
> > relation filenode for `rel`" and how should that be changed in this
> > new naming? We're not creating a new RelFileNumber - those would need
> > to be allocated, not created, as all the numbers in the universe exist
> > already. Neither are we creating a new locator; that sounds like it
> > means assembling it from pieces.
>
> I think that "This callback needs to create a new relation storage
> for `rel`" looks better.
I like the idea, but it would sound better to say "create new relation
storage" rather than "create a new relation storage."
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-07-05 21:04:41 | Re: PSA: Autoconf has risen from the dead |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-07-05 20:47:15 | symbol "conflicts" between libpq and binaries |