Re: Preventing indirection for IndexPageGetOpaque for known-size page special areas

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Preventing indirection for IndexPageGetOpaque for known-size page special areas
Date: 2022-11-28 22:31:50
Message-ID: 765514.1669674710@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Uh, XTS doesn't require a nonce, so why are talking about nonces in this
> thread?

Because some other proposals do, or could, require a per-page nonce.

After looking through this thread, I side with Robert: we should reject
the remainder of this patch. It gives up page layout flexibility that
we might want back someday. Moreover, I didn't see any hard evidence
offered that there's any actual performance gain, let alone such a
compelling gain that we should give up that flexibility for it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2022-11-28 23:15:01 Re: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15
Previous Message Dmitry Koval 2022-11-28 22:30:14 Re: Add SPLIT PARTITION/MERGE PARTITIONS commands