On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:48 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@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
