Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Should we add crc32 in libpgport?

From: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we add crc32 in libpgport?
Date: 2012-02-23 22:18:57
Message-ID: CAAZKuFZh7h3xsrFYb+3NJ6QOQHHNbTz5k1Ha-0MYsaRs54Yxqw@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> Thoughts?

Thinking unnecessary.  Motion is progress.  Here is a patch that uses
this exact plan: pgport for the tables, broken out into a header file
that is included in the building of libpgport.  I have confirmed by
objdump -t that multiple copies of the table are not included in the
postgres binary and the bloat has not occurred.

The patch has a detailed cover letter, as per the previous submissions.

-- 
fdr

Attachment: Move-CRC-tables-to-a-separate-include-file-and-libpg-v3.patch
Description: application/octet-stream (48.5 KB)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-02-23 22:32:55
Subject: Re: Initial 9.2 pgbench write results
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2012-02-23 21:36:42
Subject: Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group