From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Christof Petig <christof(dot)petig(at)wtal(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Volunteer: Large Tuples / Tuple chaining |
Date: | 1999-12-14 16:25:40 |
Message-ID: | 199912141625.LAA14553@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > I planned to use as many of PostgreSQL data structures unaltered as
> > possible. Storing one Tuple in multiple Items should not pose too much
> > danger on bufmgr and smgr unless they access tuple internals. (I didn't
> > check that yet). This would mean that on disk Items do no longer
> > correspond to Tuples. (Some of them might form one tuple).
> >
>
> Hmm,we have discussed about LONG.
> Change by LONG is transparent to users and would resolve
> the big tuple problem mostly.
> I'm suspicious that tuple chaining is worth the work now.
>
> At least a consensus is needed before going,I think.
> Bad design would only introduce a confusion.
Agreed.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-12-14 16:27:47 | Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-12-14 16:25:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Questionable codes |