| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Karl Denninger <karl(at)denninger(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Planner question - "bit" data types |
| Date: | 2009-09-08 03:36:11 |
| Message-ID: | 14949.1252380971@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Karl Denninger<karl(at)denninger(dot)net> wrote:
>> The problem with re-coding for them is extensibility (by those who install
>> and administer the package); a mask leaves open lots of extra bits for
>> "site-specific" use, where hard-coding booleans does not,
> You can always create 32 boolean fields and only use some of them,
> leaving the others for site-specific use...
Indeed. Why is "user_defined_flag_24" so much worse that "mask &
16777216" ? Especially when the day comes that you need to add one more
system-defined flag bit?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Reydan Cankur | 2009-09-08 12:31:53 | Re: Using Gprof with Postgresql |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-08 02:54:37 | Re: Planner question - "bit" data types |