On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:48 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess the idea was to have a compromise between letting rmgr authors choose
> arbitrary ids to avoid any conflicts, especially with private implementations,
> without wasting too much memory. But those approaches would be pretty much
> incompatible with the current definition:
>
> +#define RM_CUSTOM_MIN_ID 128
> +#define RM_CUSTOM_MAX_ID UINT8_MAX
>
> even if you only allocate up to the max id found, nothing guarantees that you
> won't get a quite high id.
Right, which I guess raises another question: if the maximum is
UINT8_MAX, which BTW I find perfectly reasonable, why are we not just
defining this as an array of size 256? There's no point in adding code
complexity to save a few kB of memory.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com