Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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                        |
  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 LaneDate: 2001-02-22 04:12:47
Subject: Re: Re: Fixes to index pages
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-02-22 03:56:57
Subject: Re: Fixes to index pages

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group