| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Large writable variables |
| Date: | 2018-10-16 06:22:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20181016062210.wf3lexinv32xkumq@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-10-16 01:49:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > [ let's rearrange the GUC structs ]
>
> I find it hard to believe that the API breaks you'll cause for extensions
> are a good trade for a few kB reduction in the size of the .data segment.
I'm doubtful that it's worth it too. But more because it seems like a
fair bit of work. I don't think that many extensions use guc_tables.h -
shouldn't most use guc.h, which wouldn't be affected?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-10-16 06:30:13 | Re: Large writable variables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-16 05:59:00 | Re: Large writable variables |