Hi,
On 2019-04-15 12:50:14 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 9:16 AM Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > Would like to know more specifics on this Peter. We may be having different context on hybrid row/column design.
>
> I'm confused about how close your idea of a TID is to the traditional
> definition from heapam (and even zheap). If it's a purely logical
> identifier, then why would it have two components like a TID? Is that
> just a short-term convenience or something?
There's not much of an alternative currently. Indexes require tid
looking things, and as a consequence (and some other comparatively small
changes that'd be required) tableam does too. And there's a few places
that imbue additional meaning into the higher bits of ip_posid too, so
not all of them are valid (It can't currently be zero - or
ItemPointerIsValid fails, it can't be larger than MaxOffsetNumber -
that's used to allocate things in e.g. indexes, tidbmap.c etc).
That's one of the reasons why I've been trying to get you to get on
board with allowing different leaf-level "item pointer equivalents"
widths inside nbtree...
Greetings,
Andres Freund