> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> What happened to our discussion about keeping t_info bit 13 unused??
> > I wasn't going to reserve it in the patch. I figured I would make all
> > the items/flags match, and if someone wants to reserve it, it is easy to
> > do in one place. I imagine 7.2 is going to be dump/reload anyway so the
> > decision can be made during development cycle. I basically didn't want
> > to leave a bit gap and leave it unnamed because it could cause
> > confusion.
> I object. Strongly. You are making a significant change without
> discussion --- in fact, contrary to what discussion there has been.
> This is not a "trivial cleanup".
OK, attached is the patch. I guess I don't understand how what I am
doing affects anything.
I realize you were commenting about the earlier patch that gave the 13th
bit to the length. I now see the issue you were talking about was this
* Here we make sure that the size will fit in the field reserved for
* it in t_info.
if ((size & INDEX_SIZE_MASK) != size)
elog(ERROR, "index_formtuple: data takes %lu bytes, max is %d",
(unsigned long) size, INDEX_SIZE_MASK);
I originally didn't realize that expanding the _storage_ space for the
index tuples actually allow storage of longer tuples. I see that now,
and this is why I just mark the patch as UNUSED. I will let others
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2001-02-22 03:57:50|
|Subject: Re: Re: Fixes to index pages|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-02-22 03:53:27|
|Subject: Re: Re: Fixes to index pages |