Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1381453766.5264.11.camel@vanquo.pezone.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
You linked to this email from the commitfest entry, but there is no patch here. You probably meant a different email. Check please. On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 21:48 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 04.10.2013 14:13, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnakangas@vmware.com > >> wrote: > > > >> In the attached patch, I in fact already did that for data leaf pages, but > >> didn't change the format of non-leaf pages yet. If we want to support > >> pg_upgrade, we might want to refrain from changing the non-leaf format. > > > > In GinDataLeafPageGetPostingList* you use sizeof(ItemPointerData) without > > MAXALIGN. Is it an error or you especially use 2 extra bytes on leaf page? > > I didn't even think of it. Now that I do think of it, I don't see a > reason to use MAXALIGN there. PostingItems only require 2-byte > alignment. It's a bit fragile and underdocumented though. It probably > would be good to have a struct to represent that layout. Something like: > > struct > { > ItemPointerData rightBound; > PostingItem postingItems[1]; /* variable length array */ > } PostingItemPageContent; > > And use that struct in the macros. > > Then again, we do currently use MAXALIGN there, so if we want to avoid > changing the on-disk format, we have to keep it... > > - Heikki > >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: