Re: Planner question - "bit" data types

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Karl Denninger<karl@denninger.net> 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