Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?)

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> So this patch releases one bit from AFTER_TRIGGER_OFFSET and makes it
> become AFTER_TRIGGER_CP_UPDATE.  As far as I can tell there is no harm
> in doing so.

I agree that taking a bit away from AFTER_TRIGGER_OFFSET is okay
(it could spare even a couple more, if we need them).

But could we please do it in a way that is designed to keep the
code readable, rather than to minimize the number of lines of diff?
It makes zero sense to have the bits in AFTER_TRIGGER_TUP_BITS not
be adjacent.  So what should happen here is to renumber the symbols
in between to move their bits over one place.

(Since this data is only known within trigger.c, I don't even see
an ABI-stability argument for not changing these assignments.)

            regards, tom lane