| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: remove ATTRIBUTE_FIXED_PART_SIZE |
| Date: | 2018-08-20 10:32:45 |
| Message-ID: | b451700a-5e7d-5bf7-e3af-b993cc02ed31@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18/08/2018 23:05, Tom Lane wrote:
> Possibly we need to be more careful than we are now about whether
> there's padding at the end of the fixed-size fields ... but just
> ripping out the code that attempts to deal with that is hardly
> an improvement.
I don't think the tuple packing issue has to do with the tuple
descriptor code. The tuple descriptors already use allocations of size
sizeof(FormData_pg_attribute) (CreateTemplateTupleDesc), just the memcpy
and memset calls use (potentially) less. That might have saved a few
bytes for omitting the varlena fields, but I don't think it affects
alignment correctness. If we, say, added a trailing char field now, the
only thing this code
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-08-20 10:34:15 | Re: remove ATTRIBUTE_FIXED_PART_SIZE |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-20 09:26:14 | Re: [FEATURE PATCH] pg_stat_statements with plans (v02) |