Re: Save a few bytes in pg_attribute

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Save a few bytes in pg_attribute
Date: 2023-03-21 18:55:05
Message-ID: 1363703.1679424905@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:
> FWIW, I think we should consider getting rid of attcacheoff. I doubt it's
> worth its weight these days, because deforming via slots starts at the
> beginning anyway. The overhead of maintaining it is not insubstantial, and
> it's just architecturally ugly to to update tupledescs continually.

I'd be for that if we can convince ourselves there's not a material
speed penalty. As you say, it's quite ugly.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthias van de Meent 2023-03-21 19:20:40 Re: Save a few bytes in pg_attribute
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2023-03-21 18:43:43 Re: Progress report of CREATE INDEX for nested partitioned tables