Re: Questions about HeapTupleHeaderData
От | Zdenek Kotala |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Questions about HeapTupleHeaderData |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 48AD540F.6000208@sun.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Questions about HeapTupleHeaderData (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Questions about HeapTupleHeaderData
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane napsal(a): > Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes: >> I try to understand why HeapTupleHeaderData structure has t_datum >> member. This is use only on few places and from my point of view this >> information should be stored in the HeapTupleData structure or split >> HeapTupleHeaderData it into two structures (DatumTupleHeaderData). > > Then (a) we'd have two struct definitions that have to stay in sync > and (b) we'd have to cast between HeapTupleHeader and DatumTupleHeader > pointer types in a bunch of places, adding notational messiness with > no advantage. If I understand correctly then for read path (select) tuple is always HeapTuple, because we need support select xmax ... And DatumTuple is used for write path (insert/update) and it is "converted" to HeapTuple in heap_insert/heap_update function. Hmm I'm looking into executor and executor "converts" it when tuple is copied from buffer to work memory and processed. However, Other kind of question is about space optimization. From composite data type point of view it seems to me that we waste a lot of space. For example varlena is always 4 bytes and from infomask we need only HASVARWIDTH, HEAP_HASEXTERNAL and HASNULLS which could be placed into infomask2 and all transaction information should be in infomask. By my opinion we can save minimal 8 bytes there per composite type with reordering and of course minimal tuple could be smaller too. OK any this changes bump page layout version which is not my goal now, but it could be idea for future development. Zdenek
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: