Is there a TODO here? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Conway wrote: > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This does suggest that it might be worth making the struct layout be > > > > int NodeTag; > > int length; > > foo *head; > > foo *tail; > > > > since this would avoid some padding overhead on a machine where pointers > > are 8 bytes and need 8-byte alignment. It probably doesn't help given > > the current implementation of palloc, but why throw away padding > > space? > > Interesting. I've heard in some shops it is standard policy to order > the fields in all structs by their descending sizes (making allowances > for platform-specific variations), so as to reduce padding. Do you > think it would be worthwhile to systematically make this kind of > reorganization throughout the backend? > > (Of course, we'd need to be weary of code that depends on order of the > fields in structs, naturally -- such as the "NodeTag must be the first > field" rule.) > > -Neil > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
