Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2021-04-30 21:13:03
Message-ID: f3cf932f2453ac9acda9fb36708367ea294de699.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2021-04-30 at 12:29 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > Is the problem you're worried about here that, with something like
> > an
> > index-organized table, you can have multiple row versions that have
> > the same logical tuple ID, i.e. primary key value?
>
> That's what I'm talking about. I'd like to hear what you think about
> it.

FWIW, this is not a problem in my table AM. I am fine having different
TIDs for each version, just like heapam.

For index-organized tables it does seem like an interesting problem.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2021-04-30 21:22:40 Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs
Previous Message Robert Haas 2021-04-30 21:07:51 Re: pg_amcheck contrib application