On 03/21/2014 06:43 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 03/21/2014 10:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2014-03-21 17:37:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>>> I think the GinLogicValueEnum is supposed to be an enum's name, not a
>>>> variable name, right?
>>>
>>> I think the whole thing is too cute by half. Why isn't it just
>>>
>>> typedef enum GinLogicValue
>>> {
>>> GIN_FALSE = 0, /* item is present / matches */
>>> GIN_TRUE = 1, /* item is not present / does not
>>> match */
>>> GIN_MAYBE = 2 /* don't know if item is present /
>>> don't know if
>>> * matches */
>>> } GinLogicValue;
>>>
>>> instead of thinking that we are smarter than the compiler about how
>>> to store the enum?
>>
>> It seems to be a memory only type, so using anything but the raw enum
>> type seems odd. If it were ondisk alignment stuff could make it
>> advantageous, but this way...
>
> That enum is used in the "check" arrays that are passed around GIN,
> with one element per index term being searched. I'd really like to
> keep it small, because the can be hundreds of elements long, and if
> the compiler decides to store it as a 4- or 8-byte value instead of
> one byte, it starts to add up.
>
> Besides memory usage, it's convenient that an array of GinLogicValues
> is compatible with an array of booleans, as long as there are no
> GIN_MAYBE values in it.
>
> I committed your original fix to make it an enum type, like it was
> supposed to be. Thanks!
>
>
I don't think there's any guarantee it's only going to be one byte. The
ANSI C standard says:
Each enumerated type shall be compatible with char, a signed integer
type, or an unsigned integer type. The choice of type is
implementation-defined. (6.7.2.2 Enumerationspecifiers)
cheers
andrew
