Re: Manipulating complex types as non-contiguous structures in-memory

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Manipulating complex types as non-contiguous structures in-memory
Date: 2015-02-14 17:53:58
Message-ID: 7355.1423936438@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
>>> The words that sprung to mind for me were: packed/unpacked.

>> Trouble is that we're already using "packed" with a specific connotation
>> in that same area of the code, namely for short-header varlena values.
>> (See pg_detoast_datum_packed() etc.) So I don't think this will work.
>> But maybe a different adjective?

> expanded?

That seems to work from the standpoint of not conflicting with other
nearby usages in our code, and it's got the right semantics I think.

Any other suggestions out there? Otherwise I'll probably go with this.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-02-14 17:56:03 Re: "multiple backends attempting to wait for pincount 1"
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-02-14 17:42:13 Re: New CF app deployment