On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 1:27 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The only part I do not like in the patch is that before this patch we > > could directly access the buftag->rnode. But since now we are not > > having directly relfilenode as part of the buffertag and instead of > > that we are keeping individual fields (i.e. dbOid, tbsOid and relNode) > > in the buffer tag. So if we have to directly get the relfilenode we > > need to generate it. However those changes are very limited to just 1 > > or 2 file so maybe not that bad. > > You're talking here about just needing to introduce BufTagGetFileNode > and BufTagSetFileNode, or something else? I don't find those macros to > be problematic. Yeah, I was talking about BufTagGetFileNode macro only. The reason I did not like it is that earlier we could directly use buftag->rnode, but now whenever we wanted to use rnode first we need to use a separate variable for preparing the rnode using BufTagGetFileNode macro. But these changes are very localized and a very few places so I don't have much problem with those. > > BufTagSetFileNode could maybe assert that the OID isn't too big, > though. We should ereport() before we get to this point if we somehow > run out of values, but it might be nice to have a check here as a > backup. Yeah, we could do that, I will do that in the next version. Thanks. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
