On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On 2018-04-02 11:26:38 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:12 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: [....] > I've attached a noticeably editorialized patch: > > - I'm uncomfortable with the "moved" information not being crash-safe / > replicated. Thus I added a new flag to preserve it, and removed the > masking of the moved bit in the ctid from heap_mask(). > > - renamed macros to not mention valid / invalid block numbers, but > rather > HeapTupleHeaderSetMovedPartitions / HeapTupleHeaderIndicatesMovedPartitions > and > ItemPointerSetMovedPartitions / ItemPointerIndicatesMovedPartitions > > I'm not wedded to these names, but I'l be adamant they they're not > talking about invalid block numbers. Makes code harder to understand > imo. >
These names are much better than before, thanks. One concern -- instead xxxMovedPartitions can we have xxxPartitionChanged or xxxChangedPartition? xxxMovedPartitions looks (at least to me) like partitions are moved. In other databases, there is maintenance command to move a partition from one tablespace to another, current naming is fine as long as we don't support the same, but if we do then this names will be confusing, comments/thoughts? Regards, Amul
