Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+GBB4L_WeKcpBEXUcnWC1ohpzKx1xZOzLZAPjRZ+5vKw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 3:00 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 03:03:57PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 11:18:37AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> Won't 'Lateral' clause be helpful here as the patch contains it in one
> >> of its tests?
> >
> > Ah true, I forgot that.
>
> If we are redesigning the interface, here are two extra thoughts which
> may be worth considering:
> 1) If the function returns multiple columns, could it make sense to
> separate infomask and infomask2?  This would then give 3 columns:
> - The raw flags for infomask.
> - The three combined flags for infomask.
> - The flags for infomask2.
> 2) Could it make sense to have a separate function for infomask2?
>

I don't see much use of separating information for infomask and infomask2.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: nilsocket
Date:
Subject: Re:
Next
From: Tattsu Yama
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor