Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 11:26 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> It just has to be able to accept the restriction that
> indexes must have a unique TID-like identifier for each version (not
> quite a version actually -- whatever the equivalent of a HOT chain
> is). This is a restriction that Jeff had pretty much planned on
> working within before starting this thread (I know this because we
> spoke about it privately).

Well, I think what I'm saying is that I'm not on board with such a restriction.

If you're just saying that it has to be possible to identify rows
somehow, I am in full agreement, and I think the universe is on board
as well.

But if you're saying those identifiers have to be fixed-width and 48
(or even 64) bits, I disagree that we wish to have such a requirement
in perpetuity.

That'd be like going around to automobile manufacturers in 1925 and
asking them to agree that all future cars ever manufactured must have
a clutch.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com