From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A little COPY speedup |
Date: | 2007-03-01 22:35:41 |
Message-ID: | 17692.1172788541@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> I'll post a patch along those lines.
> Here it is.
> I'm not fond of the macro names for the flag, but couldn't think of
> anything shorter yet descriptive.
Let's reverse the sense of the flag bit; this seems a good idea since
the initial state should be 0 = there are no free pointers. Also I'd
go with PD_ as the prefix, for consistency with the field names.
This brings us to PD_HAS_FREE_LINE_POINTERS or some abbreviation thereof
(maybe PD_HAS_FREE_LINES is sufficient).
I'd also go with "pd_flags" as the field name; "amprivate" seems to
imply way too much about what we might later use the flags for.
Barring objections, I'll tweak this as above and apply.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | FAST PostgreSQL | 2007-03-02 00:19:43 | Re: [HACKERS] |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-03-01 22:19:46 | Re: A little COPY speedup |