Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >     LP_UNUSED       0
> >     LP_NORMAL       1
> >     LP_REDIRECT     2
> >     LP_DEAD         3
> > This seems hardly any uglier than the way the code stands today, and
> > certainly a lot less ugly than what the current HOT patch proposes.
> >
> > Comments?
> If I understand correctly this still leaves open the possibility of
> implementing in the future "quick pruning" as we've been speculating about. We
> could represent that with a line pointer which is LP_DEAD but still has a
> length and offset. I'm not sure we need to do it now but I'll be glad if we
> aren't foreclosing the possibility.
> These kinds of rethinks are typical of the tension between someone writing a
> patch to submit for review, where they often want to keep the lines of code
> changed to a minimum to avoid conflicts and to avoid giving reviewers extra
> code to read which, and normal code maintenance. 

Yes, good point.  This is why I am glad Tom can give it a full review.

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to