| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Manipulating complex types as non-contiguous structures in-memory |
| Date: | 2015-05-14 01:01:43 |
| Message-ID: | 13013.1431565303@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2015-05-13 20:48:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I still think that going back to defining the second byte as the size
>> would be better. Fortunately, since this is only a matter of in-memory
>> representations, we aren't committed to any particular answer.
> Requiring sizes to be different still strikes me as a disaster. Or is
> that not what you're proposing?
It is, but why would it be a disaster? We could add StaticAsserts
verifying that the sizes actually are different. I doubt that the pad
space itself could amount to any issue performance-wise, since it would
only ever exist in transient in-memory tuples, and even that only seldom.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-05-14 01:06:09 | Re: Manipulating complex types as non-contiguous structures in-memory |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-05-14 00:58:46 | Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE |