Tom Lane wrote: > I said: > > Sorry, you used up your chance at claiming that t_hoff is dispensable. > > If we apply your already-submitted patch, it isn't. > > Wait, I take that back. t_hoff is important to distinguish how much > bitmap padding there is on a particular tuple --- but that's really > only interesting as long as we aren't forcing dump/initdb/reload. > If we are changing anything else about tuple headers, then that > argument becomes irrelevant anyway. > > However, I'm still concerned about losing safety margin by removing > "redundant" fields.
I just wanted to comment that redundancy in the tuple header, while adding a very marginal amount to stability, is really too high a cost. If we can save 4 bytes on every row stored, I think that is a clear win. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
