Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 16:53:04 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	John Naylor <john.naylor@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@bec.de>,
	David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>,
	John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable
 variables)
Message-ID: <201901091953.p3k2mqdwq5jk@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <12359.1547063064@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-1013-2c1e88
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Jan-09, Tom Lane wrote:

> We could make the index table still smaller if we wanted to reassign
> a couple dozen high-numbered functions down to lower OIDs, but I dunno
> if it's worth the trouble.  It certainly isn't from a performance
> standpoint, because those unused entry ranges will never be touched
> in normal usage; but it'd make the server executable a couple KB smaller.

Or two couples KB smaller, if we abandoned the idea that pg_proc OIDs
must not collide with those in any other catalog, and we renumbered all
functions to start at OID 1 or so.  duplicate_oids would complain about
that, though, I suppose ... and nobody who has ever hardcoded a function
OID would love this idea much.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services