On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Karl Denninger<karl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > > It does appear, however, that a bitfield doesn't evaluate any differently > than does an integer used with a mask, so there you have it..... it is what > it is, and if I want this sort of selectivity in the search I have no > choice. You can always create 32 boolean fields and only use some of them, leaving the others for site-specific use... ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
