| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268) |
| Date: | 2008-12-11 15:59:32 |
| Message-ID: | 200812111759.33900.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday 11 December 2008 04:52:51 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > We do have a per-row HEAP_HASOID bit, so I wonder if we can have a
> > > HEAP_HASSEC bit too. Right now the HEAP_HASOID is controlled by the
> > > CREATE/ALTER table;
> >
> > The current patch add HEAP_HASSECURITY bit to t_infomask. :-)
> > When it is false, its security field is not available and not allocated.
>
> Good.
This is probably OK, but if you want to save a bit or generalize it, it might
be worth considering using the normal null bitmap and nullity everywhere
instead of individual HEAP_HASTHISORTHAT bits for every feature.
Of course, if we expect that most rows will have no security information, this
tradeoff might end up on the wrong side of the equation.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2008-12-11 16:05:07 | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1268) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-12-11 15:51:35 | Re: Refactoring SearchSysCache + HeapTupleIsValid |