Re: Some RELKIND macro refactoring

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>

Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2021-08-25T05:44:27Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:01:33PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> While analyzing this again, I think I found an existing mistake.  The
> handling of RELKIND_PARTITIONED_INDEX in RelationGetNumberOfBlocksInFork()
> seems to be misplaced.  See attached patch.

Right.  This maps with RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE().  Makes me wonder whether
is would be better to add a check on RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE() in this
area, even if that's basically the same as the Assert() already used
in this code path.
--
Michael

Commits

Some RELKIND macro refactoring
- 37b2764593c0 15.0 landed
pg_dump: Add missing relkind case
- a22d6a2cb62c 15.0 landed
Fix handling of partitioned index in RelationGetNumberOfBlocksInFork()
- 0d906b2c0b1f 15.0 landed