On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> A TODO for this?
You mean this part?
>> On the other hand, the problem of the FSM taking up 24kB for an 8kB
>> table seems clearly worth fixing, but I don't think I have the cycles
>> for it at present. Maybe a TODO is in order.
I certainly think that'd be worth a TODO. Whether the rest of this is
worth worrying about I'm not sure.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-08-20 19:22:04|
|Subject: Re: The pgrminclude problem|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-08-20 19:11:51|
|Subject: Re: Timing overhead and Linux clock sources|