Re: Planner question - "bit" data types

[Scott Carey <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sep 7, 2009, at 7:05 PM, Karl Denninger 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.

Perhaps, use a view to encapsulate the extensible bit fields?  Then custom installations just modify the view?  I haven't thought through that too far, but it might work.

-- Karl

<karl.vcf>
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance