| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: POC: Sharing record typmods between backends |
| Date: | 2017-05-31 17:27:28 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-vSnkC59ffRa17pSV--gymRbX7WzNU2=mW2tjSedvyGJw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Well, SH_TYPE's members SH_ELEMENT_TYPE *data and void *private_data
> are not going to work in DSM, because they are pointers. You can
> doubtless come up with a way around that problem, but I guess the
> question is whether that's actually any better than just using DHT.
Probably I misunderstood the question. I assumed that we need to bring
in DHT only for achieving this goal. But, if the question is simply
the comparison of DHT vs simplehash for this particular case then I
agree that DHT is a more appropriate choice.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-05-31 17:46:36 | Re: POC: Sharing record typmods between backends |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2017-05-31 17:18:54 | Re: <> join selectivity estimate question |