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

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wzk_p0G=6v=pZ+iiu0cW0C+tJ__ZQwz_DiJziVZH1SBxRw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 12:09 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> Like anything, we make the decision at the time we have a reason to
> break something. But why are are exensions disfavored in this
> calculation vs. in-core? Isn't it a lot easier to update in-core code
> to new APIs?

We don't really have an API for how TIDs behave (unless you happen to
want to emulate heapam, which is reasonable and was expected). It's
unspecified because nobody knows what it is (or what it should be)
just yet. AFAICT there is no TID API to break.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: COPY table_name (single_column) FROM 'iso-8859-1.txt' DELIMITER E'\n'
Next
From: Matthias van de Meent
Date:
Subject: Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs