On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 21:43, David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 21:15, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 05:46:33PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > @@ -5146,10 +5146,6 @@ ReorderBufferToastReplace(ReorderBuffer *rb,
> > ReorderBufferTXN *txn,
> > dlist_i
On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 22:33, Chao Li wrote:
> I have removed those ones that you don’t want in v2 diff.
Looks like it's just the rowtypes.c ones that you have that I didn't
list. get_sql_insert() and FreeTupleDesc() were in my reject list.
The extra ones you've found seem to match a similar pat
> On Oct 20, 2025, at 16:49, David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 21:34, Chao Li wrote:
>> I search for “TupleDescAttr”, and found more occurrences to replace. See the
>> attached diff file.
>
> Thanks for looking. There was a bunch that I didn't do and tried to
> convey that in t
On 2025-Oct-20, David Rowley wrote:
> There's also some more
> complexity around CompactAttribute.attnotnull that's crept in. I think
> I roughly understand the need for that, but the intent of
> CompactAttribute mirroring commonly used pg_attribute fields is made
> no longer true by those changes
On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 21:34, Chao Li wrote:
> I search for “TupleDescAttr”, and found more occurrences to replace. See the
> attached diff file.
Thanks for looking. There was a bunch that I didn't do and tried to
convey that in the commit message.
The diff you sent seems to contain a mix of m
On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 21:15, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 05:46:33PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > I don't think the attached is very interesting to look at, but l'll
> > leave it here for a bit just in case anyone wants to look. Otherwise,
> > I plan to just treat it as a
> On Oct 20, 2025, at 12:46, David Rowley wrote:
>
> 5983a4cff added CompactAttribute to TupleDesc to allow commonly
> accessed fields from the FormData_pg_attribute array to be accessed
> more quickly by having to load fewer cachelines from memory. That
> commit also went around and changed ma
On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 05:46:33PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> I don't think the attached is very interesting to look at, but l'll
> leave it here for a bit just in case anyone wants to look. Otherwise,
> I plan to just treat it as a follow-up of 5983a4cff.
Still I've looked at it. I like readin
