Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZuoyewmk4fJabRTqE63NBYsOuz1eH0etfpq7z1C0PZXg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 11:26 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_amcheck contrib application
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs