From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Repair cosmetic damage (done by pg_indent?) |
Date: | 2007-08-04 21:58:07 |
Message-ID: | 8464.1186264687@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I think these are some more comments which were misaligned by pg_indent a
> couple of releases ago. I recall Bruce fixed a bug in pg_indent which was
> causing it and the damage looked something like this.
> I also reduced the indentation so the comments didn't take so many lines.
pg_indent would just push the indentation back over, so the latter part
isn't going to help. I cleaned it up a bit, but not exactly like that.
> Fwiw, do we really not want to compress anything smaller than 256 bytes
> (everyone in Postgres uses the default strategy, not the always strategy).
This is one of many places where no one got around to doing performance
testing/tweaking after the original commit. Given the way that
tuptoaster actually uses the compressor (ie, compressing only the
largest fields to start with), I tend to agree that having the
compressor reject input a-priori might be a bad idea. Needs testing.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-08-04 22:02:36 | Re: Repair cosmetic damage (done by pg_indent?) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-08-04 21:31:08 | Re: Document and/or remove unreachable code in tuptoaster.c from varvarlena patch |