Re: copy.c allocation constant
| От | Bruce Momjian |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: copy.c allocation constant |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20180124031414.GD17109@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | copy.c allocation constant (Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: copy.c allocation constant
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:51:28AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > While reading copy.c I noticed this line: > > > #define RAW_BUF_SIZE 65536 /* we palloc RAW_BUF_SIZE+1 bytes */ > > > Doesn't that seem rather odd? If we're adding 1 wouldn't it be better as > 65535 so we palloc a power of 2? > > > I have no idea if this affects performance, but it did strike me as strange. Coming in late here, but it does seem very odd. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: