| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Anyone see a need for BTItem/HashItem? |
| Date: | 2006-01-16 20:52:01 |
| Message-ID: | 17908.1137444721@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2006-01-16 20:59:42 | Re: Anyone see a need for BTItem/HashItem? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-01-16 20:49:55 | Re: [HACKERS] message for constraint |