| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing log_cnt from pg_sequence_read_tuple() |
| Date: | 2024-08-29 05:11:22 |
| Message-ID: | ZtAC-m1N8sakbGTP@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 08:28:03PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 08:00:52AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Indeed, pg_sequence_read_tuple() would not reflect the reality, some
>> ideas:
>> - pg_sequence_read_data
>> - pg_sequence_get_data
>> - pg_sequence_data
>> - More consistent with other catalog functions: pg_get_sequence_data,
>> as we have already in the tree a lot of pg_get_* functions.
>
> pg_get_sequence_data() sounds fine to me.
Okay, here is a v2 of the patch using this name for the function.
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| seq-read-tuple-logcnt-v2.patch | text/x-diff | 4.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yuya Watari | 2024-08-29 05:34:46 | Re: [PoC] Reducing planning time when tables have many partitions |
| Previous Message | shveta malik | 2024-08-29 04:49:50 | Re: Conflict Detection and Resolution |