| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4 |
| Date: | 2017-03-21 06:39:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20170321063929.24ytp6pqmck34p7f@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-03-20 16:06:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... is there a reason why resultnum for EEOP_ASSIGN_* steps is declared
> size_t and not just int? Since it's an array index, and one that
> certainly can't be bigger than AttrNumber, that seems rather confusing.
Not that I can see, no. I guess I might have "overcompensated" when
changing it from AttrNumber - AttrNumber isn't a good idea because that
needs an extra move-zero-extend, because 16bit indexing isn't that well
supported on x86. But that doesn't mean it should be a 64bit number -
to the contrary actually.
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2017-03-21 07:02:42 | Re: Refactor handling of database attributes between pg_dump and pg_dumpall |
| Previous Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2017-03-21 06:36:31 | Do we create a new roadmap page for development? |