Re: remove ATTRIBUTE_FIXED_PART_SIZE

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: remove ATTRIBUTE_FIXED_PART_SIZE
Date: 2018-08-20 10:34:15
Message-ID: 52894b9c-39ff-227d-5b87-35ec05f4fdcb@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 20/08/2018 12:32, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 18/08/2018 23:05, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Possibly we need to be more careful than we are now about whether
>> there's padding at the end of the fixed-size fields ... but just
>> ripping out the code that attempts to deal with that is hardly
>> an improvement.
>
> I don't think the tuple packing issue has to do with the tuple
> descriptor code. The tuple descriptors already use allocations of size
> sizeof(FormData_pg_attribute) (CreateTemplateTupleDesc), just the memcpy
> and memset calls use (potentially) less. That might have saved a few
> bytes for omitting the varlena fields, but I don't think it affects
> alignment correctness. If we, say, added a trailing char field now, the
> only thing this code

[oops]

... the only thing the current code would accomplish is not copying the
last three padding bytes, which might even be slower than copying all four.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-08-20 10:43:20 Re: ALTER TABLE on system catalogs
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-08-20 10:32:45 Re: remove ATTRIBUTE_FIXED_PART_SIZE