| From: | darrenk(at)insightdist(dot)com (Darren King) |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | abrams(at)philos(dot)umass(dot)edu |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] config.h/Followup FOLLOWUP |
| Date: | 1998-01-05 01:45:30 |
| Message-ID: | 9801050145.AA81378@ceodev |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> So, is it lp_len or lp_offset that can be reduced by 2? I want to
> experiment with this...
>
Neither...try grep'ing around for uses of lp_flags. I dug into this
last Dec/Jan...check the hackers digests from that time for any
relevent info. At that time, only two bits in lp_flags were in use.
Don't know if any more are taken now or not.
Both lp_len and lp_offset should be the same, so if you take four bits
from lp_flags (and give two apiece to lp_len & lp_offset), that would
get you to a block size of 32k.
Now that there're timely src snapshots available, I'm going to try to
get back into coding (assuming the aix port still works. :)
darrenk
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-01-05 02:14:37 | new \d information |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1998-01-05 00:28:10 | date format: Canada same as European or US? |