> > I think it would be cleaner to put the message headers into their own > > table. Very searchable, and clearly distinct from the message body. > > > > I agree a seperate tablem but the question is: would Jesse be happy with > a two table relationship. one for header titles, and the other for header > contents?
Heck, I'm pretty easy-going, either works for me. :) The real advantage to just using a flag is it could probably be done right now - it's quite trivial, and would probably even make the job of header caching easier. To restructure the headers to another table is quite a bit more intrusive, and I'd guess would probably get put off till a later date (remember how long it took the changes to use physmessageblks to stablize?). If the advantages to seperating it (which is just less data to read in a sequential scan, right?) are compelling, keep it on the todo list and do it right (after 2.2 :). -- Jesse Norell [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not my email address; change "administrator" to my first name. --
