From: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de,
    pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: xl_heap_header alignment?
In-reply-to: <81794.1598122134@antos>
References: <21643.1595353537@antos>
 <5A0F3128-D990-4431-9E97-793CD99FF11E@anarazel.de>
 <1058724.1595356403@sss.pgh.pa.us> <22193.1595393913@antos>
 <20200822004048.GO13363@momjian.us> <81794.1598122134@antos>
Comments: In-reply-to Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
   message dated "Sat, 22 Aug 2020 20:48:54 +0200."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <81970.1598122815.1@antos>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 21:00:15 +0200
Message-ID: <81971.1598122815@antos>
Precedence: bulk

Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> wrote:

> If the comment tells that t_hoff can be computed (i.e. it's no necessary=
 to
> include it in the structure), I think the comment should tell why it's y=
et
> included. Maybe something about "historical reasons"? Perhaps we can say=
 that
> the storage used to be free due to padding, and that it's no longer so, =
but
> it's still "cheap", so it's not worth to teach the REDO functions to com=
pute
> the value.

I've received some more replies to your email as soon as I had replied. I
don't insist on my proposal, just go ahead with your simpler changes.

-- =

Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com