Re: Some RELKIND macro refactoring

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Some RELKIND macro refactoring
Date: 2021-08-25 05:44:27
Message-ID: YSXYuxLv+ed/Dy0v@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:01:33PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> While analyzing this again, I think I found an existing mistake. The
> handling of RELKIND_PARTITIONED_INDEX in RelationGetNumberOfBlocksInFork()
> seems to be misplaced. See attached patch.

Right. This maps with RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE(). Makes me wonder whether
is would be better to add a check on RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE() in this
area, even if that's basically the same as the Assert() already used
in this code path.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2021-08-25 05:48:39 Re: Postgres perl module namespace
Previous Message tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com 2021-08-25 05:40:39 RE: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side