* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > >> I'd have gone with just adding more bool columns as needed. > > > I don't think I was the only one concerned that adding a bunch of new > > columns would bloat the size of pg_authid and the C structure behind it, > > but I'm not remembering offhand who else considered it. > > Lessee, as of 9.4 pg_authid required 76 bytes per row, plus row header > overhead that'd have probably pushed it to 104 bytes per row (more if > you had non-null rolpassword or rolvaliduntil). If we add as many as 20 > more booleans we'd be at 124 bytes per row, whereas with this approach > we'd have, well, 104 bytes per row. I'm not seeing much benefit to > justify such a drastic change of approach.
I suppose. I didn't consider it to be a terribly drastic change but
rather simply using a better representation for a mostly-internal bit of
data. It also lended itself pretty nicely to maniuplation (at least,
imv, the code is a lot cleaner with the bitmask, but it's not a huge
deal). Guess I had been expecting concerns to be raised around adding
many more bytes where there wouldn't have been.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
