Re: Anyone see a need for BTItem/HashItem?

On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 03:52:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm considering getting rid of the BTItem/BTItemData and
> HashItem/HashItemData struct definitions and just referencing
> IndexTuple(Data) directly in the btree and hash AMs. It appears
> that at one time in the forgotten past, there was some
> access-method-specific data in index entries in addition to the
> common IndexTuple struct, but that's been gone for a long time and I
> can't see a reason why either of these AMs would resurrect it. So
> this just seems like extra notational cruft to me, as well as an
> extra layer of palloc overhead (see eg _bt_formitem()). GIST
> already got rid of this concept, or never had it.
>
> Does anyone see a reason to keep this layer of struct definitions?

If you cut it out, what will the "heap" and "index" access methods
needed for SQL/MED use?

Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter david(at)fetter(dot)org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!