On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 1:27 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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