Hi, On 2026-03-09 09:34:46 -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > On Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 3:31 PM Tomas Vondra <[email protected]> wrote: > > > No opinion. For displaying the bogus TID value (like "(-1,0)") it's > > probably OK to show values that are a bit weird. If anything, we should > > be more careful on input, it's too late for tid_block() to decide what to > > do with an "impossible" TID value. > > > > This one doesn't sit right with me. I think it's not too late. No reason > why tid_block cannot be stricter here than tid itself and complain. Other > than that, the patch looks good to me.
I don't see any advantage in that. These functions are useful for inspecting tid values that come from some source. When would you *ever* gain *anything* from not being able to see the block / offset of a tid datum that you already have? This isn't an end user focused type / set of accessor functions were being particularly careful about input validation will perhaps prevent users from making mistakes... Greetings, Andres Freund
