On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 10:42:49AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > #define VARDATA_4B(PTR) ((PTR)->va_4byte.va_data) > > #define VARDATA_2B(PTR) ((PTR)->va_2byte.va_data) > > #define VARDATA_1B(PTR) ((PTR)->va_1byte.va_data) > I thought we had abandoned the 2-byte-header variant? Maybe you need to > start a separate thread about exactly which of the bit-level proposals > you want to implement. There were quite a few tradeoffs discussed in > the previous thread IIRC.
I agreed with Tom in the last thread. The 2 byte case doesn't seem like good value for the return. Simpler analysis results in easier to optimize code for the compiler, and less complexity stored on disk. Please remove 2B. :-) Cheers, mark -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly