Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Last infomask bit

Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> >>> Patch applied. Thanks.
> >>> I added a comment about the unused bits in the header file.
> >> Has anyone bothered to measure the overhead added by having to mask to
> >> fetch or store the natts value? This is not a zero-cost improvement.
> >
> > SHOW ALL has:
> >
> > log_temp_files | -1 | Log the use of temporary files larger than th
> >
> > and pg_settings has:
> >
> > log_temp_files | -1 | kB | Reporting and Logging / What to Log
> >
> > Looks OK to me.
>
> What? I'm completely lost here. What does log_temp_files have to do with
> the bits on the tuple header?

Sorry, Tom wanted two things tested and I replied to the wrong email.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +