hi, thanks for taking a look.
> y...@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) writes: >> the attached patch is to avoid unnecessary detoast'ing and EOF marker pages >> when possible. does it make sense? > > The blob page size is already chosen not to allow for out-of-line > storage, not to mention that pg_largeobject doesn't have a TOAST table. > So I think avoiding detoasting is largely a waste of time. doesn't detoasting involve decompression? > I'm > unexcited about the other consideration too --- it looks to me like it > just makes truncation slower, more complicated, and hence more > bug-prone, in return for a possible speedup that probably nobody will > ever notice. slower? it depends, i guess. my primary motivation of that part of the patch was to save some space for certain workloads. (besides that, leaving unnecessary rows isn't neat, but it might be a matter of taste.) YAMAMOTO Takashi > > regards, tom lane > > -- > Sent via pgsql-novice mailing list (pgsql-nov...@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-novice -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
