| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 16:32:10 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikz260CPvn0wnU-Lu3X_ErYiAF-0D4fq6+6i8R5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 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?
I think you might be mixing up what's actually in the patch with
another idea that was proposed but isn't actually in the patch. The
patch itself does nothing controversial.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-18 16:33:16 | Re: Replication logging |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-18 16:31:17 | Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups |