> 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.
OK, we are both catching up now on the email. Should I put it in
current? Seems like cosmetic cleanup. Of course, even if you say yes,
I have to wait 24 hours.
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: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-02-22 04:12:47|
|Subject: Re: Re: Fixes to index pages |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2001-02-22 03:56:57|
|Subject: Re: Fixes to index pages|