Re: Union-ifying RangeTblEntry

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm about to have to add _another_ flag to RangeTblEntry, to track
> row-security expansion.
>
> In the process I noticed the comment:
>
> /*
> * XXX the fields applicable to only some rte kinds should be
> * merged into a union. I didn't do this yet because the diffs
> * would impact a lot of code that is being actively worked on.
> * FIXME someday.
> */
>
> and it struck me that the end of the 9.4 commitfest might be a
> reasonable time to do this now that PstgreSQL is subject to "pulsed"
> development with commitfests.
>
> As part of that, a number of the flag fields on RangeTblEntry into a
> bitfield.
>
> Comments?

I'd be more inclined to just remove the comment. Does a RangeTblEntry
really use enough memory that we need to conserve bytes there?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company