From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Ryan Bradetich" <rbradetich(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Question regarding the database page layout. |
Date: | 2008-09-03 11:20:30 |
Message-ID: | 87tzcxa329.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>> BTW, there are at least two copies of that code to be changed. I'd
>>> suggest grepping for assignments to t_hoff to be sure there aren't more.
>
>> I did send in a patch a while ago to get rid of the old HeapFormTuple() and
>> friends.
>
> I remember discussing that idea, but I don't recall seeing an actual
> patch? It would have to be quite large because of the number of places
> using the old way. I'd also be a bit worried about breaking add-on
> modules to little purpose ...
Huh, apparently I did it but didn't actually send in the patch:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-10/msg00851.php
I looked around and I don't seem to have it lying around any more. (Kind of
mystifying since I have tons of old source trees and patches, just not that
one.)
I could do the janitorial work again if we're interested.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | pgsql | 2008-09-03 12:24:08 | Function call order dependency |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2008-09-03 09:23:58 | Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code |