| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4 |
| Date: | 2017-03-21 15:31:08 |
| Message-ID: | 32632.1490110268@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-03-20 16:06:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... is there a reason why resultnum for EEOP_ASSIGN_* steps is declared
>> size_t and not just int? Since it's an array index, and one that
>> certainly can't be bigger than AttrNumber, that seems rather confusing.
> Not that I can see, no. I guess I might have "overcompensated" when
> changing it from AttrNumber - AttrNumber isn't a good idea because that
> needs an extra move-zero-extend, because 16bit indexing isn't that well
> supported on x86. But that doesn't mean it should be a 64bit number -
> to the contrary actually.
OK, will fix in the edits I'm working on.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2017-03-21 15:32:21 | Re: Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-21 15:07:39 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add missing support for new node fields |