David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> I think this is a good idea. It seems reasonable that some other AM
> might want to do the same thing. Also, it allows me to choose a better
> name for these new IndexOnlyScanState fields. ioss_NameCStringAttNums
> and ioss_NameCStringCount seems more on point. However, I couldn't
> really decide which way around to have Name and CString.
This version LGTM. The field names are fine, or at least I don't see
a reason to prefer the other way. One trivial nit: should we make
the array be AttrNumber* instead of int*? The space saving would be
negligible (it being very unlikely that there's ever more than one
entry), but AttrNumber is a more specific description of what it is.
regards, tom lane
