Robert Haas <robertmhaas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Karl Denninger<karl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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, > You can always create 32 boolean fields and only use some of them, > leaving the others for site-specific use... Indeed. Why is "user_defined_flag_24" so much worse that "mask & 16777216" ? Especially when the day comes that you need to add one more system-defined flag bit? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
