On 2017-04-08 17:20:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> This makes me wonder whether we were being penny-wise and pound-foolish > >> by not making Bitmapsets be a kind of Node, so that there could be IsA > >> assertions in the bitmapset.c routines, as there are for Lists. > > > I think it's pretty dubious to change this, honestly. Just because it > > would have caught this one bug doesn't make it an especially valuable > > thing in general. Bytes are still not free. > > Yeah, true. OTOH I recall Andres lobbying to change the bitmap word > size to 64 bits on 64-bit hardware, and it *would* be free in that case > due to alignment padding.
Hah, yes, I did. A loong time ago ;) I still think it's a good idea, and probably has become more useful with just about anyone using 64bits these days. Also interesting for tidbitmap, which reuses bitmapset's bitmapword. > We could also consider installing the nodetag only in Assert-enabled > builds, although that approach would prevent us from applying followon > simplifications such as not having to treat bitmapset fields specially > in copyfuncs.c and like places. Yea, don't like this much. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers