| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg(at)bec(dot)de>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, John Naylor <jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables) |
| Date: | 2019-01-09 19:53:04 |
| Message-ID: | 201901091953.p3k2mqdwq5jk@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Jan-09, Tom Lane wrote:
> We could make the index table still smaller if we wanted to reassign
> a couple dozen high-numbered functions down to lower OIDs, but I dunno
> if it's worth the trouble. It certainly isn't from a performance
> standpoint, because those unused entry ranges will never be touched
> in normal usage; but it'd make the server executable a couple KB smaller.
Or two couples KB smaller, if we abandoned the idea that pg_proc OIDs
must not collide with those in any other catalog, and we renumbered all
functions to start at OID 1 or so. duplicate_oids would complain about
that, though, I suppose ... and nobody who has ever hardcoded a function
OID would love this idea much.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-01-09 19:53:07 | Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-01-09 19:44:24 | Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables) |