On Fri, 2021-04-30 at 13:56 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > I think that would be the best long-term plan.
We should still have *some* answer in the short term for table AM authors like me. If I use offset numbers as high as MaxOffsetNumber, then itemptr_to_uint64 will fail. If I base my calculations for the TID to row number mapping on MaxOffsetNumber at all, then it will break if we change MaxOffsetNumber (as was suggested[1]). My takeaway so far is that the only safe thing to do is hard code it to 2000. I suppose I can do that until we settle on something better (at which point I can force a reindex, I suppose). [1] https://postgr.es/m/caeze2wit1ethhbhj+cyvbpthrwuzu2vqc-bmzu3apk3ioth...@mail.gmail.com > Even though these are distinguishable concerns, they basically point > in the same direction as far as index layout is concerned. The > implications for the table AM layer are somewhat different in the two > cases, but both argue that some places that are now talking about > TIDs > should be changed to talk about Datums or something of that sort. Logically, that makes a lot of sense to me. Peter seems to have quite a few practical implementation concerns though, so it could be a long road. Regards, Jeff Davis
