Tom Lane wrote:
> I said:
> > Sorry, you used up your chance at claiming that t_hoff is dispensable.
> > If we apply your already-submitted patch, it isn't.
>
> Wait, I take that back. t_hoff is important to distinguish how much
> bitmap padding there is on a particular tuple --- but that's really
> only interesting as long as we aren't forcing dump/initdb/reload.
> If we are changing anything else about tuple headers, then that
> argument becomes irrelevant anyway.
>
> However, I'm still concerned about losing safety margin by removing
> "redundant" fields.
I just wanted to comment that redundancy in the tuple header, while
adding a very marginal amount to stability, is really too high a cost.
If we can save 4 bytes on every row stored, I think that is a clear win.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
