Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think this is incredibly ugly :-(.
Yes, I think so, too :-( My patch is product of the thought that I don't want to modify codes widely. So if we want to do it more cool way, lots of changes are needed as you said. > I'm also less than enthused about using up our last infomask bit for > a relatively unimportant purpose. We might need that for something > bigger someday... though I can't presently guess what. I think it is not a problem, because the header still has rooms for several bits. I assume that the combination of HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED + HEAP_XMIN_INVALID has currently no meaning, right? If so, HEAP_FROZEN can be assigned here. Also, t_natts is currently 16-bits, but it can be cut to 11-bits because MaxTupleAttributeNumber is 1664 < 2^11. --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Cyber Space Laboratories ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
