Re: xl_heap_header alignment?

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: xl_heap_header alignment?
Date: 2020-08-31 17:58:31
Message-ID: 20200831175831.GJ13613@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 09:00:15PM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote:
> Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>
> > If the comment tells that t_hoff can be computed (i.e. it's no necessary to
> > include it in the structure), I think the comment should tell why it's yet
> > included. Maybe something about "historical reasons"? Perhaps we can say that
> > the storage used to be free due to padding, and that it's no longer so, but
> > it's still "cheap", so it's not worth to teach the REDO functions to compute
> > the value.
>
> I've received some more replies to your email as soon as I had replied. I
> don't insist on my proposal, just go ahead with your simpler changes.

Patch applied.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com

The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ranier Vilela 2020-08-31 18:08:49 Re: Clang UndefinedBehaviorSanitize (Postgres14) Detected undefined-behavior
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-08-31 17:53:01 Re: Ideas about a better API for postgres_fdw remote estimates