Horton

Re: RE: [HACKERS] CLASSOID patch

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Cc: "Chris Bitmead" <chris@bitmead.com>, "Postgres Hackers List" <hackers@postgreSQL.org>, "pgsql-patches@postgresql.org" <pgsql-patches@postgreSQL.org>
Date: 2000-06-26T03:18:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> The points I've noticed are the following.
> 1) It seems not preferable to add an entry *relation* which is of
>     Relation type in HeapTupleData. Relation OID seems to be
>     sufficient for your purpose.

I haven't looked at the patch at all yet, but I agree 100% with
Hiroshi on this point.  Relation is a pointer to a relcache entry
and relcache entries are *volatile*.  If all you need is the OID
then store the OID --- don't open Pandora's box by assuming the
relcache entry will never disappear before your tuple value does.

			regards, tom lane