Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Questions about HeapTupleHeaderData

From: Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Questions about HeapTupleHeaderData
Date: 2008-08-21 11:39:59
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane napsal(a):
> Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
>> I try to understand why HeapTupleHeaderData structure has t_datum 
>> member. This is use only on few places and from my point of view this 
>> information should be stored in the HeapTupleData structure or split 
>> HeapTupleHeaderData it into two structures (DatumTupleHeaderData).
> Then (a) we'd have two struct definitions that have to stay in sync
> and (b) we'd have to cast between HeapTupleHeader and DatumTupleHeader
> pointer types in a bunch of places, adding notational messiness with
> no advantage.

If I understand correctly then for read path (select) tuple is always 
HeapTuple, because we need support select xmax ... And DatumTuple is 
used for write path (insert/update) and it is "converted" to HeapTuple 
in heap_insert/heap_update function.

Hmm I'm looking into executor and executor "converts" it when tuple is 
copied from buffer to work memory and processed.

However, Other kind of question is about space optimization.

 From composite data type point of view it seems to me that we waste a 
lot of space. For example varlena is always 4 bytes and from infomask we 
need only HASVARWIDTH, HEAP_HASEXTERNAL and HASNULLS which could be 
placed into infomask2 and all transaction information should be in 
infomask. By my opinion we can save minimal 8 bytes there per composite 
type with reordering and of course minimal tuple could be smaller too.
OK any this changes bump page layout version which is not my goal now, 
but it could be idea for future development.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2008-08-21 12:21:57
Subject: Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf
Previous:From: Asko OjaDate: 2008-08-21 08:52:59
Subject: Re: Bogus TODO item

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group