| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use a bitmask to represent role attributes |
| Date: | 2014-12-23 15:53:51 |
| Message-ID: | 32005.1419350031@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I would have preferred (and I believe argued for) keeping the existing
> catalog representation for existing attributes and using a bitmask for
> new ones, to avoid breaking client code. But I am not sure if that's
> actually the best decision. I find Tom's concern about needing more
> than 64 attributes to be ill-founded; I can't really see that
> happening on any timescale that matters.
I tend to agree, which is why I'm questioning the decision to not just
keep adding bool columns. I don't see how that's not both more convenient
and less surprising.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-12-23 15:55:01 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use a bitmask to represent role attributes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-12-23 15:51:32 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use a bitmask to represent role attributes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-12-23 15:55:01 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use a bitmask to represent role attributes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-12-23 15:51:32 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use a bitmask to represent role attributes |