Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 12:40 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
>> Why bit just add a new bitfield for flags if we need them? I'm usually
>> the one worried about data density so perhaps I should be on the other
>> side of the fence here but I'm not sure. The conventional wisdom is
>> that wal bandwidth is not a major issue.
> In some cases, but my wish is also to minimise WAL volume as much as
> possible.
I'm with Greg on this one: baroque bit-squeezing schemes are a bad idea.
You still haven't answered the question of what you need four more bits
for (and why four more is all that anyone will ever need --- unless you
can prove that, we might as well just add another flag field).
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
