| From: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: xl_heap_header alignment? |
| Date: | 2020-08-22 19:00:15 |
| Message-ID: | 81971.1598122815@antos |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> If the comment tells that t_hoff can be computed (i.e. it's no necessary to
> include it in the structure), I think the comment should tell why it's yet
> included. Maybe something about "historical reasons"? Perhaps we can say that
> the storage used to be free due to padding, and that it's no longer so, but
> it's still "cheap", so it's not worth to teach the REDO functions to compute
> the value.
I've received some more replies to your email as soon as I had replied. I
don't insist on my proposal, just go ahead with your simpler changes.
--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2020-08-23 08:55:59 | Re: [PATCH] Covering SPGiST index |
| Previous Message | Antonin Houska | 2020-08-22 18:48:54 | Re: xl_heap_header alignment? |