Re: tid_blockno() and tid_offset() accessor functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ayush Tiwari
Subject Re: tid_blockno() and tid_offset() accessor functions
Date
Msg-id CAJTYsWXA2cuTg+eKZUr287P6PgTP-_0_=Jb5dkfJiRv6KtuU2g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: tid_blockno() and tid_offset() accessor functions  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: tid_blockno() and tid_offset() accessor functions
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

Thanks for the review!

Attaching a patch with all document changes, removed the cross-reference to datatype-oid entirely. I've moved the &func-tid; entry in func.sgml to directly follow &func-textsearch;, which fits better alphabetically, and reworded the introductory paragraph to be much more concise, directly pointing to the table.

Regards,
Ayush

On Fri, 13 Mar 2026 at 23:24, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
Hi,

On 2026-03-13 18:08:04 +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> As for naming; I'd personally prefer to have 'heap' included in the
> names here (e.g. heaptid_blkno(tid) or heap_blkno[_of](tid)), because
> not all AMs may map tid.blkno exactly to a block number in the main
> fork. While PostgreSQL (in core) currently only knows about the heap
> AM, we should probably keep clear of pretending that all tableAMs
> produce TIDs that behave exactly like heap's do.

Meh. As long as tids themselves are split like they are, without any
variability of the amount of space dedicated for either component, I don't see
any advantage in that.

Greetings,

Andres Freund
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Álvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: some more include removal from headers
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Skipping schema changes in publication