I said:
> Sorry, you used up your chance at claiming that t_hoff is dispensable.
> If we apply your already-submitted patch, it isn't.
Wait, I take that back. t_hoff is important to distinguish how much
bitmap padding there is on a particular tuple --- but that's really
only interesting as long as we aren't forcing dump/initdb/reload.
If we are changing anything else about tuple headers, then that
argument becomes irrelevant anyway.
However, I'm still concerned about losing safety margin by removing
"redundant" fields.
regards, tom lane