On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 03:52:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm considering getting rid of the BTItem/BTItemData and > HashItem/HashItemData struct definitions and just referencing > IndexTuple(Data) directly in the btree and hash AMs. It appears > that at one time in the forgotten past, there was some > access-method-specific data in index entries in addition to the > common IndexTuple struct, but that's been gone for a long time and I > can't see a reason why either of these AMs would resurrect it. So > this just seems like extra notational cruft to me, as well as an > extra layer of palloc overhead (see eg _bt_formitem()). GIST > already got rid of this concept, or never had it. > > Does anyone see a reason to keep this layer of struct definitions?
If you cut it out, what will the "heap" and "index" access methods needed for SQL/MED use? Cheers, D -- David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
