Re: [HACKERS] sbufdesc' padding...

"Thomas G. Lockhart" wrote:
> 
> > * ... this hack cut 10% off of the time to create the Wisconsin
> > * database! It eats up more shared memory, of course, but we're
> > * (allegedly) going to make some of these types bigger soon
> > * anyway... -pma 1/2/93
> > This is not true now:
> > #define BufferDescriptorGetBuffer(bdesc) ((bdesc)->buf_id + 1)
> > Comments ?...
> 
> Does that mean that we have re-introduced the slower allocation
> technique sometime since 1993? 10% speed improvement for some operations
> seems interesting...

Why slower allocation? BufferDescriptorGetBuffer used sizeof sbufdesc
to get buffer number in 1993. Jolly/Andrew put buffer number
(buf_id) into sbufdesc itself and so made sbufdesc padding
useless.

Vadim