Hi, On 2016-05-03 00:05:35 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote: > Maybe consider checking for the exclusivity explicitely?
I thought about it, and decided it's not worth it. Requiring one of those to be specified seems stringent enough. > I'm unsure about switching enum to #define, could be an enum still with > explicit values set, something like: > > enum { > EXTENSION_RETURN_NULL = (1 << 0), > ... > } extension_behavior; An enum doesn't have a benefit for a bitmask imo - you can't "legally" use it as a type for functions accepting the bitmask. > I'm fuzzy about the _OPEN_DELETED part because it is an oxymoron. Is it > RECREATE really? No. The relevant explanation is at the top of the file: * On disk, a relation must consist of consecutively numbered segment * files in the pattern * -- Zero or more full segments of exactly RELSEG_SIZE blocks each * -- Exactly one partial segment of size 0 <= size < RELSEG_SIZE blocks * -- Optionally, any number of inactive segments of size 0 blocks. * The full and partial segments are collectively the "active" segments. * Inactive segments are those that once contained data but are currently * not needed because of an mdtruncate() operation. The reason for leaving * them present at size zero, rather than unlinking them, is that other * backends and/or the checkpointer might be holding open file references to * such segments. If the relation expands again after mdtruncate(), such * that a deactivated segment becomes active again, it is important that * such file references still be valid --- else data might get written * out to an unlinked old copy of a segment file that will eventually * disappear. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers