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.
Advertising
Yes, good point. This is why I am glad Tom can give it a full review. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + 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
