Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> ... But we only need one bit, so what about commandeering
>> an infomask bit in the tuple itself? For the initial implementation
>> I'd be inclined to take one of the free bits in t_infomask2. We could
>> actually get away with overlaying the flag bit with one of the tuple
>> visibility bits, since it will only be used in tuples that are in the
>> in-memory hash table, which don't need visibility info anymore. But
>> that seems like a kluge that could wait until we really need the flag
>> space.
> I think that's a reasonable approach, although I might be inclined to
> do the overlay sooner rather than later if it doesn't add too much
> complexity.
Well, there's no "complexity" involved, it's just which bit do we define
the macro as. Any complexity is conceptual.
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
