Re: Planner question - "bit" data types - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Planner question - "bit" data types
Date
Msg-id 20090908022246.GT8894@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Planner question - "bit" data types  (Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net>)
Responses Re: Planner question - "bit" data types  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-performance
Karl Denninger escribió:

> The individual boolean fields don't kill me and in terms of some of the
> application issues they're actually rather easy to code for.
>
> The problem with re-coding for them is extensibility (by those who
> install and administer the package); a mask leaves open lots of extra
> bits for "site-specific" use, where hard-coding booleans does not, and
> since the executable is a binary it instantly becomes a huge problem for
> everyone but me.

Did you try hiding the bitmask operations inside a function as Tom
suggested?

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Karl Denninger
Date:
Subject: Re: Planner question - "bit" data types
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Planner question - "bit" data types