On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 01:39:58AM +, Tom Dunstan wrote:
Not with this patch, and AFAIK not possible generally, without writing
separate I/O functions for each type. I'd love to be able to do that,
but I don't think it's possible currently. The main stumbling block is
the output
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
Also, it's not just I/O functions that are the issue, consider the
enum-to-integer cast.
er, what cast? :-)
IIRC Tom hasn't provided one. If you don't break the enum abstraction
there should be no need for one, and given the implementation it's not
quite
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
As for efficiency, I agree with what Tom says about alignment and
padding dissolving away any perceived advantage in most cases. If we
ever get around to optimising record layout we could revisit it.
I don't, because there are always those that are knowledgeable enough
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
As for efficiency, I agree with what Tom says about alignment and
padding dissolving away any perceived advantage in most cases. If we
ever get around to optimising record layout we could revisit it.
I don't, because there are always those
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't, because there are always those that are knowledgeable enough to
know how to reduce space lost to padding. So it would be nice to have
2-byte enums on-disk, and resolve them based on the column's typid. But
then, I'm not familiar with the
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not a big fan of ordering columns to optimise record layout, except in the
most extreme cases (massive DW type apps). I think visible column order should
be logical, not governed by physical considerations.
Well as long as we're talking shoulds the
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I don't, because there are always those that are knowledgeable enough to
know how to reduce space lost to padding. So it would be nice to have
2-byte enums on-disk, and resolve them based on the column's typid. But
then, I'm not familiar with the patch at all so I'm not
