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

Re: [HACKERS] systable_getnext_ordered

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: yamt(at)mwd(dot)biglobe(dot)ne(dot)jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi)
Cc: pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] systable_getnext_ordered
Date: 2011-02-01 00:02:26
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-novice
yamt(at)mwd(dot)biglobe(dot)ne(dot)jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) writes:
> the attached patch is to avoid unnecessary detoast'ing and EOF marker pages
> when possible.  does it make sense?

The blob page size is already chosen not to allow for out-of-line
storage, not to mention that pg_largeobject doesn't have a TOAST table.
So I think avoiding detoasting is largely a waste of time.  I'm
unexcited about the other consideration too --- it looks to me like it
just makes truncation slower, more complicated, and hence more
bug-prone, in return for a possible speedup that probably nobody will
ever notice.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-novice by date

Next:From: matty jonesDate: 2011-02-01 00:54:27
Subject: Primary keys in a single column table and text vs varchar
Previous:From: YAMAMOTO TakashiDate: 2011-01-31 23:39:24
Subject: Re: [NOVICE] systable_getnext_ordered

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2011-02-01 00:09:05
Subject: Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery"
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-01-31 23:55:04
Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group