Re: POC: Sharing record typmods between backends

On May 31, 2017 11:28:18 AM PDT, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
>wrote:
>> On 2017-05-31 13:27:28 -0400, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Yea, I don't think simplehash is the best choice here. It's
>worthwhile
>> to use it for performance critical bits, but using it for everything
>> would just increase code size without much benefit. I'd tentatively
>> assume that anonymous record type aren't going to be super common,
>and
>> that this is going to be the biggest bottleneck if you use them.
>
>Did you mean "not going to be"?

Err, yes. Thanks
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.