On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I'm about to have to add _another_ flag to RangeTblEntry, to track > row-security expansion. > > In the process I noticed the comment: > > /* > * XXX the fields applicable to only some rte kinds should be > * merged into a union. I didn't do this yet because the diffs > * would impact a lot of code that is being actively worked on. > * FIXME someday. > */ > > and it struck me that the end of the 9.4 commitfest might be a > reasonable time to do this now that PstgreSQL is subject to "pulsed" > development with commitfests. > > As part of that, a number of the flag fields on RangeTblEntry into a > bitfield. > > Comments?
I'd be more inclined to just remove the comment. Does a RangeTblEntry really use enough memory that we need to conserve bytes there? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
