| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: datum passed to macro which expects a pointer |
| Date: | 2008-04-13 00:42:02 |
| Message-ID: | 87skxqbn6t.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 07:07:48PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> > I wish. It was actually thrown up when we (Greenplum) changed the macros
>> > to be inline functions as part of changing Datum to be 8 bytes.
>>
>> Hmmm ... Datum has been 8 bytes for many years, on 64-bit machines.
>> What is it you're trying to accomplish by making it wider on 32-bitters?
>
> I miss stated there. This was actually about making key 64 bit types
> pass by value instead of pass by reference.
There was a patch to do this posted recently here as well.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2008-03/msg00335.php
Hm. I suppose it's true that you could make Datum 64-bit even on 32-bit
machines and make int8 and float8 pass-by-value. Seems unlikely to be a net
win though.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2008-04-13 01:35:24 | Re: datum passed to macro which expects a pointer |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-12 23:21:32 | Re: datum passed to macro which expects a pointer |