Re: [HACKERS] sbufdesc' padding...

> "Thomas G. Lockhart" wrote:
> >
> > > * ... this hack cut 10% off of the time to create the Wisconsin
> > > * database! It eats up more shared memory, of course, but we're
> > > * (allegedly) going to make some of these types bigger soon
> > > * anyway... -pma 1/2/93
> > > This is not true now:
> > > #define BufferDescriptorGetBuffer(bdesc) ((bdesc)->buf_id + 1)
> > > Comments ?...
> >
> > Does that mean that we have re-introduced the slower allocation
> > technique sometime since 1993? 10% speed improvement for some operations
> > seems interesting...
>
> Why slower allocation? BufferDescriptorGetBuffer used sizeof sbufdesc
> to get buffer number in 1993. Jolly/Andrew put buffer number
> (buf_id) into sbufdesc itself and so made sbufdesc padding
> useless.

Oh, then you can remove the padding.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026