| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: texteq/byteaeq: avoid detoast [REVIEW] |
| Date: | 2011-01-18 16:15:02 |
| Message-ID: | 11083.1295367302@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 05:39, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I haven't looked at this patch, but it seems to me that it would be
>> reasonable to conclude A != B if the va_extsize values in the toast
>> pointers don't agree.
> It's a very light-weight alternative of memcmp the byte data,
> but there is still the same issue -- we might have different
> compressed results if we use different algorithm for TOASTing.
Which makes it a lightweight waste of cycles.
> So, it would be better to apply the present patch as-is.
No, I don't think so. Has any evidence been submitted that that part of
the patch is of benefit?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Popowich | 2011-01-18 16:30:04 | BUG #5842: Memory leak in PL/Python when taking slices of results |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-18 15:57:35 | Re: Replication logging |