Brendan Jurd escribió: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 7:27 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > One thing I'm not entirely happy about is the fact that we need a > > pointer to the last footer/cell/header, so two pointers for each > > element kind. > > Well, the alternative is iterating through the array each time you > want to add something until you hit a NULL pointer, and adding the new > item at that point. Considering we're only chewing up an extra 4 * > sizeof(pointer) = 16 bytes in the struct, it seems like a reasonable > price to pay for the convenience. Well, consider that there are going to be 1 or 2 entries in the arrays in most cases anyway :-) Well, as far as footers go anyway ... I just realized that in all other cases it will certainly be the wrong thing to do :-) Still, perhaps a integer count is better? > What is it about the extra fields that makes you unhappy? I don't know if "unnecessarity" is a word, but I hope you get what I mean :-) -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
