| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Using per-transaction memory contexts for storing decoded tuples |
| Date: | 2024-10-03 09:46:25 |
| Message-ID: | 9409d59d-808f-4c50-a7fc-6cdcc7d5674e@oss.nttdata.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024/10/03 13:47, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> I agree that the overhead will be much less visible in real workloads.
>>> +1 to use a smaller block (i.e. 8kB).
+1
>>> It's easy to backpatch to old
>>> branches (if we agree)
+1
>> It seems that
>> only reorderbuffer.c uses the LARGE macro so that it can be removed.
>
> I'm going to keep the LARGE macro since extensions might be using it.
Yes, for the back-patch. But in the master branch,
we basically don't need to maintain this kind of compatibility?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-10-03 09:48:37 | Re: [PATCH] Check for TupleTableSlot nullness before dereferencing |
| Previous Message | Alexey Orlov | 2024-10-03 09:32:59 | Re: Patch: Show queries of processes holding a lock |