Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > SHOW ALL has:
>
> >log_temp_files | -1 | Log
> > the use of temporary files larger than th
>
> Yeah, but if you do "SET log_temp_files = -1", does it still say that?
> I'm worried
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
> Tom, how should this be tested? I assume some loop of the same query
> over and over aga
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SHOW ALL has:
>log_temp_files | -1 | Log the
> use of temporary files larger than th
Yeah, but if you do "SET log_temp_files = -1", does it still say that?
I'm worried that will change it to -1024.
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.
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.
