[no subject]

On 1/16/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> I'm considering getting rid of the BTItem/BTItemData and
> HashItem/HashItemData struct definitions and just referencing
> IndexTuple(Data) directly in the btree and hash AMs.  It appears that
> at one time in the forgotten past, there was some access-method-specific
> data in index entries in addition to the common IndexTuple struct, but
> that's been gone for a long time and I can't see a reason why either of
> these AMs would resurrect it.  So this just seems like extra notational
> cruft to me, as well as an extra layer of palloc overhead (see eg
> _bt_formitem()).  GIST already got rid of this concept, or never had it.
>
> Does anyone see a reason to keep this layer of struct definitions?
>
>                         regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

------=_Part_15477_9745696.1137445357903
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline