| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs |
| Date: | 2021-05-05 18:35:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=3XnqdZyghs+ogpNH+x4e3hKyozdQ97Hh5TWRK_G4-og@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:56 AM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> What has little chance of succeeding? Table AMs?
>
> And why isn't columnar an example of someting that can "get by with
> heapam's idea of TID"? I mean, it's not a perfect fit, but my primary
> complaint this whole thread is that it's undefined, not that it's
> completely unworkable.
I think that it could be fairly workable with moderate effort (maybe
even without that effort, but that doesn't seem so appealing). To do
it well we have to actually generalize TIDs sensibly. And I think that
that means admitting that we'll never solve the "TID is a stable
identifier of a logical row, not a physical version" problem. ISTM
that that's the problem that is at the root of everything here.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2021-05-05 18:38:51 | Re: COPY table_name (single_column) FROM 'unknown.txt' DELIMITER E'\n' |
| Previous Message | Joel Jacobson | 2021-05-05 18:35:03 | Re: COPY table_name (single_column) FROM 'unknown.txt' DELIMITER E'\n' |