On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 09:53:09AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:48 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I guess the idea was to have a compromise between letting rmgr authors > > choose > > arbitrary ids to avoid any conflicts, especially with private > > implementations, > > without wasting too much memory. But those approaches would be pretty much > > incompatible with the current definition: > > > > +#define RM_CUSTOM_MIN_ID 128 > > +#define RM_CUSTOM_MAX_ID UINT8_MAX > > > > even if you only allocate up to the max id found, nothing guarantees that > > you > > won't get a quite high id. > > Right, which I guess raises another question: if the maximum is > UINT8_MAX, which BTW I find perfectly reasonable, why are we not just > defining this as an array of size 256? There's no point in adding code > complexity to save a few kB of memory.
Agreed, especially if combined with your suggested approach 3 (array of pointers).
