On 1 August 2011 20:53, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> writes: >> OK, so I should split this into 2 patches? >> Even without the compression, it's probably worth the 16 -> 10 byte >> reduction that would result from removing the 2nd CTID in the UPDATE >> case, and that part would be a pretty small patch. > > Yeah, my point exactly. The rest of it might or might not be worth the > extra complication. >
OK, here's a patch for the first bit - just removing the second CTID in the UPDATE case, and including a sanity check of the new tuple's xmin and cmin. It passes all the regression tests. I also tested it by doing a 10M row UPDATE x=x+1 on a deferrable PK, and it gave about the expected reduction in memory usage, with no difference in run time. I'll test out the additional compression separately. Regards, Dean
after-triggers-1.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
