On 2014-09-19 15:40:14 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 09/18/2014 09:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >I'll try to write a more polished patch tomorrow. We'll then see what it > >looks like, and can decide if we want it. > > Ok, here are two patches. One is a refined version of my earlier patch, and > the other implements the separate offsets array approach. They are both > based on Tom's jsonb-lengths-merged.patch, so they include all the > whitespace fixes etc. he mentioned. > > There is no big difference in terms of code complexity between the patches. > IMHO the separate offsets array is easier to understand, but it makes for > more complicated accessor macros to find the beginning of the > variable-length data.
I personally am pretty clearly in favor of Heikki's version. I think it could stand to slightly expand the reasoning behind the mixed length/offset format; it's not immediately obvious why the offsets are problematic for compression. Otherwise, based on a cursory look, it looks good. But independent of which version is chosen, we *REALLY* need to make the decision soon. This issue has held up the next beta (like jsonb has blocked previous beta) for *weeks*. Personally it doesn't make me very happy that Heikki and Tom had to be the people stepping up to fix this. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
