On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 09:46:41 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
wrote:
>Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at> writes:
>> . the heap tuple header is already formatted, i.e. t_hoff is valid
>
>I think the latter test is unnecessary
Yes, currently.
> and potentially dangerous;
That's the reason, I explicitly mentioned it.
>it could break code that tries to access OID in a
>not-yet-completely-built header. The test that insists t_hoff is valid
>before one can *set* OID is even more likely to cause trouble.
This was actually the case in one or two places; I had to change the
order of assignments there. The code does not contain too many places
where a heap tuple header is built. If the assertions break the code,
we (or in this case: I) have to fix it. I need the assertions to find
those spots, if there are any left.
>I do not see the point of this in any case.
I see you have read my proposal on -hackers in the meantime. Does
that make it clearer?
> regards, tom lane
Thanks for reviewing my patch!
Servus
Manfred
