Re: Re: Fixes to index pages

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: Fixes to index pages
Date: 2001-02-22 03:57:50
Message-ID: 200102220357.WAA12966@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

> 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

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-02-22 04:12:47 Re: Re: Fixes to index pages
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-02-22 03:56:57 Re: Fixes to index pages