Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > > > Tom, here are the changes I was thinking about to clean up a few areas
> > > > > in index pages tables. I will hold the patch until 7.2.
> > > >
> > > > What happened to our discussion about keeping t_info bit 13 unused??
> > >
> > > I wasn't going to reserve it in the patch. I figured I would make all
> > > the items/flags match, and if someone wants to reserve it, it is easy to
> > > do in one place. I imagine 7.2 is going to be dump/reload anyway so the
> > > decision can be made during development cycle. I basically didn't want
> > > to leave a bit gap and leave it unnamed because it could cause
> > > confusion.
> > >
> >
> > You have added the following TODO recently.
> > * Add deleted bit to index tuples to reduce heap access
> >
> > Where would you have the deleted bit in IndexTupleData ?
>
> Wow, seems like everyone liked the deleted bit idea. :-)
>
> I would put it in bit 13. I would adjust the bit masks in the itup.h
> file. I assume you are asking why I don't do it in the patch,
I don't think it's a good idea to fill bit 13 by force.
There's only 1 bit unused. IMHO there must be a discussion
about how to use the bit.
Regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
