| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Karl Denninger <karl(at)denninger(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Planner question - "bit" data types |
| Date: | 2009-09-08 02:22:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20090908022246.GT8894@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Karl Denninger escribió:
> The individual boolean fields don't kill me and in terms of some of the
> application issues they're actually rather easy to code for.
>
> The problem with re-coding for them is extensibility (by those who
> install and administer the package); a mask leaves open lots of extra
> bits for "site-specific" use, where hard-coding booleans does not, and
> since the executable is a binary it instantly becomes a huge problem for
> everyone but me.
Did you try hiding the bitmask operations inside a function as Tom
suggested?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-08 02:54:37 | Re: Planner question - "bit" data types |
| Previous Message | Karl Denninger | 2009-09-08 02:05:59 | Re: Planner question - "bit" data types |