Re: Anyone see a need for BTItem/HashItem?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Anyone see a need for BTItem/HashItem?
Date: 2006-01-16 21:02:07
Message-ID: 18005.1137445327@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 03:52:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Does anyone see a reason to keep this layer of struct definitions?

> If you cut it out, what will the "heap" and "index" access methods
> needed for SQL/MED use?

What's that have to do with this?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonah H. Harris 2006-01-16 21:02:37 Re: Anyone see a need for BTItem/HashItem?
Previous Message Jaime Casanova 2006-01-16 20:59:45 Re: [HACKERS] message for constraint