Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> (Speaking of which, the "exclusive" field is declared as a "char"; I
> wonder if it wouldn't be more clear to declare it as "bool", and treat
> it as a boolean field.
I coded it that way because I was thinking of it as a count (0 or 1),
for symmetry with the count of shared holders. You could argue it
either way I suppose.
regards, tom lane