Anyone see a need for BTItem/HashItem?

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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