Added to TODO:
* Consider allowing 64-bit integers to be passed by reference on 64-bit
platforms
---
Neil Conway wrote:
On Tue, 2007-29-05 at 16:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
(I imagine someday we'll get around to
I think that's backwards. We *are* passing them by reference, we should
be considering passing them by value.
//Magnus
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Added to TODO:
* Consider allowing 64-bit integers to be passed by reference on 64-bit
platforms
Magnus Hagander wrote:
I think that's backwards. We *are* passing them by reference, we should
be considering passing them by value.
Thanks, fixed.
---
//Magnus
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Added to TODO:
*
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
I think that's backwards. We *are* passing them by reference, we should
be considering passing them by value.
Thanks, fixed.
Also, the TODO item ought to mention float4 and float8, which IMHO ought
to be changed at the same time.
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
I think that's backwards. We *are* passing them by reference, we should
be considering passing them by value.
Thanks, fixed.
Also, the TODO item ought to mention float4 and float8, which IMHO ought
to be
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Specifically, I'm interested if I actually end up making my table any
smaller if I move from 64-bit integer primary key to 32-bit.
Depends what else is in the row ... the overall row will get padded to
MAXALIGN, but if you were wasting 4 bytes on
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Specifically, I'm interested if I actually end up making my table any
smaller if I move from 64-bit integer primary key to 32-bit.
Depends what else is in the row ... the overall row will get padded to
MAXALIGN, but if you were
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Specifically, I'm interested if I actually end up making my table any
smaller if I move from 64-bit integer primary key to 32-bit.
Depends what else is in the row ... the overall row will get padded to
MAXALIGN, but if you were wasting 4 bytes on
On Tue, 2007-29-05 at 16:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
(I imagine someday we'll get around to allowing int8 to be pass-by-value
on 64-bit platforms.)
This could really be a significant performance win: I'm planning to take
a look at doing it for 8.4.
-Neil
---(end of
