Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs

On Fri, 2021-04-30 at 11:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> My thought at the moment is that all APIs above the AM level ought
> to be redefined to use uint64 for tuple identifiers.

One challenge might be reliance on InvalidOffsetNumber as a special
value in a number of places (e.g. bitmap index scans). That doesn't
seem like a major problem though.

> heapam and
> related index AMs could map block + offset into that in some
> convenient way, and other AMs could do what they like.

Do you mean that indexes would be expected to hold a uint64, a 48-bit
int (that directly maps to a uint64), or still hold an ItemPointerData?

Regards,
	Jeff Davis