|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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)|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:06 PM Andrew Dunstan
> <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> If he doesn't I will.
> I'll take a crack at separating into a module. I'll wait a bit in
> case there are any stylistic suggestions on the patch as it stands.
I had a go at that myself. I'm sure there's plenty to criticize in
the result, but at least it passes make check-world ;-)
I resolved the worry I had last night about the range of table values
by putting in logic to check the range and choose a suitable table
element type. There are a couple of existing calls where we manage
to fit the hashtable elements into int8 that way; of course, by
definition that doesn't save a whole lot of space since such tables
couldn't have many elements, but it seems cleaner anyway.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||John Naylor||2019-01-08 20:33:08||Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables|
|Previous Message||Andres Freund||2019-01-08 19:21:14||Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)|