Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 05:39, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I haven't looked at this patch, but it seems to me that it would be >> reasonable to conclude A != B if the va_extsize values in the toast >> pointers don't agree.
> It's a very light-weight alternative of memcmp the byte data, > but there is still the same issue -- we might have different > compressed results if we use different algorithm for TOASTing. Which makes it a lightweight waste of cycles. > So, it would be better to apply the present patch as-is. No, I don't think so. Has any evidence been submitted that that part of the patch is of benefit? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers