Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> After looking closer, I think there are worse problems here: the code is >> still using VARSIZE/VARDATA etc, which it should not be because the >> field could easily be in 1-byte-header form.
> Well that's ok because VARATT_IS_EXTENDED returns true for 1-byte forms so > it'll detoast them first. Ah, right. > We could avoid the detoasting but given that it's > expecting the chunks to be compressed anyways the memcpys of the smallest > chunks probably don't matter much either way. I'm assuming it's like toast in > that only the last chunk will be smaller than LOBLKSIZE anyways, right? Well, it's like toast except that there can be unwritten "holes" in a LO. Still, in normal cases you'd expect only the last partial page to be potentially short enough for 1-B format, and even then only about 1/16th of the time. OK, not worth changing then. > There should never even be a null bitmap right? Maybe we should just > elog(ERROR) if we find HeapTupleHasNulls(tuple) to be true at all. That sounds like a good and cheap test. Will make it so. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster