|From:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|To:||Paul Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2020-Mar-23, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 4:33 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> > Thinking about the on-disk representation, can we do better than putting
> > the contained ranges in long-varlena format, including padding; also we
> > include the type OID with each element. Sounds wasteful. A more
> > compact representation might be to allow short varlenas and doing away
> > with the alignment padding, put the the type OID just once. This is
> > important because we cannot change it later.
> Can you give me some guidance on this? I don't know how to make the on-disk
> format different from the in-memory format. (And for the in-memory format, I
> think it's important to have actual RangeTypes inside the multirange.) Is
> there something in the documentation, or a README in the repo, or even
> another type I can follow?
Sorry I didn't reply earlier, but I didn't know the answer then and I
still don't know the answer now.
Anyway, I rebased this to verify that the code hasn't broken, and it
hasn't -- the tests still pass. There was a minor conflict in
pg_operator.dat which I fixed.
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
|Next Message||Thomas Munro||2020-04-04 23:31:05||Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?|
|Previous Message||Mark Dilger||2020-04-04 22:34:38||Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?|