Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use a bitmask to represent role attributes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use a bitmask to represent role attributes
Date
Msg-id 31639.1419349001@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use a bitmask to represent role attributes  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use a bitmask to represent role attributes  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Again, I suppose I should have objected earlier, but I really seriously
>> doubt that this is a good idea.

> Ugh.  I thought we had a consensus that this was the accepted way
> forward; that's my reading of the old thread,
>
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20141016133218.GW28859@tamriel.snowman.net#20141016133218.GW28859@tamriel.snowman.net

I was aware that we were thinking of introducing a bunch more role
attributes, but I'm wondering what's the rationale for assuming that
(a) they'll all be booleans, and (b) there will never, ever, be more
than 64 of them.  The argument that lots of boolean columns won't
scale nicely doesn't seem to lead to the conclusion that a fixed-size
bitmap is better.

I'd have gone with just adding more bool columns as needed.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use a bitmask to represent role attributes
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use a bitmask to represent role attributes