Re: Manipulating complex types as non-contiguous structures in-memory

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 00:53:01
Message-ID: 20150514005301.GB9584@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-05-14 00:58:46 Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-05-14 00:48:51 Re: Manipulating complex types as non-contiguous structures in-memory