From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: Re: Large writable variables
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 10:16:33 -0400
Message-ID: <30245.1539699393@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181016063317.xjfd2dnlhy6tg5gx@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20181015200754.7y7zfuzsoux2c4ya@alap3.anarazel.de>
<31562.1539658872@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<6813.1539669540@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20181016063317.xjfd2dnlhy6tg5gx@alap3.anarazel.de>
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-10-16 01:59:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, I noticed that the biggest part of those structs are arrays of
>> FormatNode, which has been designed with complete lack of thought about
>> size or padding issues. We can very easily cut it in half on 64-bit
>> machines.
> Heh, neat. I feel like we've paid very little attention to that in a
> myriad of places :(
Most of the time, we probably *shouldn't* pay attention to it; logical
field ordering is worth a good deal IMO. But in a case like this,
where there are large arrays of the things and it's not very painful
to avoid padding waste, it's worth the trouble.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com
Subject: Re: Large writable variables
In-Reply-To: <30245.1539699393@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox