Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Re: Fixes to index pages

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: Fixes to index pages
Date: 2001-02-22 03:53:27
Message-ID: 13572.982814007@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> The patch never intended to increase the index tuple length.  It was
> only to better document how IndexTupleData is used.  Both Tom and I
> agreed that the use of bits/contants/macros in itup.h was not idea, and
> needed a little cleaning.  That's all the patch does.

The original version of the patch commandeered an extra bit for tuple
length.  If you back off INDEX_SIZE_MASK to 1FFF, and document bit
13 as unused/reserved, then it's just a cleanup.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-02-22 03:56:57
Subject: Re: Fixes to index pages
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-02-22 03:49:18
Subject: Re: Fixes to index pages

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group