Re: [HACKERS] Cleanup: avoid direct use of ip_posid/ip_blkid

2017-03-05 Thread Pavan Deolasee
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2/22/17 08:38, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > > One reason why these macros are not always used is because they > > typically do assert-validation to ensure ip_posid has a valid value. > > There are a few

Re: [HACKERS] Cleanup: avoid direct use of ip_posid/ip_blkid

2017-03-02 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I wonder why we allow that. Shouldn't the tid type reject input that > has ip_posid == 0? InvalidOffsetNumber (that is, 0) is something that I wouldn't like to bet doesn't make it out to disk at some

Re: [HACKERS] Cleanup: avoid direct use of ip_posid/ip_blkid

2017-03-02 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 2/22/17 08:38, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > One reason why these macros are not always used is because they > typically do assert-validation to ensure ip_posid has a valid value. > There are a few places in code, especially in GIN and also when we are > dealing with user-supplied TIDs when we might

[HACKERS] Cleanup: avoid direct use of ip_posid/ip_blkid

2017-02-22 Thread Pavan Deolasee
Hello All, I would like to propose the attached patch which removes all direct references to ip_posid and ip_blkid members of ItemPointerData struct and instead use ItemPointerGetOffsetNumber and ItemPointerGetBlockNumber macros respectively to access these members. My motivation to do this is