Re: [PATCHES] Last infomask bit

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>>> Patch applied.  Thanks.
>>> I added a comment about the unused bits in the header file.
>> Has anyone bothered to measure the overhead added by having to mask to
>> fetch or store the natts value?  This is not a zero-cost improvement.
>
> SHOW ALL has:
>
>    log_temp_files                  | -1                             | Log the use of temporary files larger than th
>
> and pg_settings has:
>
>    log_temp_files    | -1      | kB  | Reporting and Logging / What to Log
>
> Looks OK to me.

What? I'm completely lost here. What does log_temp_files have to do with
the bits on the tuple header?

--
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com