Re: Patch: ResourceOwner optimization for tables with many partitions

>> To be honest, I think this patch is really ugly. [...] I'm not sure
>> exactly what to do about that, but it seems like a problem.

I have an idea. There are actually two types of resources - int-like
(buffers, files) and void*-like (RelationRef, TupleDesc, ...). What if
I split ResourceArray into IntResourceArray and PointerResourceArray? It
would definitely solve ugliness problem --- no more memcpy's, char[]
buffers, etc.

>> It would be advisable for example that hash_any not suddenly become
>> covered by the "must not fail" requirement.

Frankly I can't think of any case when hash_any could or should fail.
Maybe we should just add a "must not fail" constraint to hash_any
description?

Also I could use some other hash implementation. It may be reasonable
in this case since size of data I would like to hash is small and known
in advance.

>> BTW, I do not think you can get away with the requirement that
>> all-zeroes isn't a valid resource representation. It might be okay
>> today but it's hardly future-proof.

Agree. I could store a value that should be considered as "zero" in
ResourceArray. It would be InvalidBuffer for buffers, -1 for files and
NULL for all void*-types. Does such solution sounds OK? 

Best regards,
Aleksander