Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Patch applied.  Thanks.
> > I added a comment about the unused bits in the header file.
> Has anyone bothered to measure the overhead added by having to mask to
> fetch or store the natts value?  This is not a zero-cost improvement.

I assumed Heikki had tested it, but now see no mention of a test in the

Tom, how should this be tested?  I assume some loop of the same query
over and over again.

  Bruce Momjian   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to