From: | "Ryan Bradetich" <rbradetich(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Zdenek Kotala" <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [WIP] Reduce alignment requirements on 64-bit systems. |
Date: | 2008-10-09 06:13:57 |
Message-ID: | e739902b0810082313g7a920c8tbf82a154140fa3c3@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Zdenek,
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com> wrote:
> Just a quick look. At first point. Your change introduces new page layout
> version. Which is not acceptable from my point of view for 8.4 (it add
I would like to see this patch (or some variant) go in if possible.
Since the inplace
upgrades a concern to you, is there anything I can do to help with the inplace
upgrades to help offset the disruption this patch causes you?
> another complexity to inplace upgrade). And I guest that it maybe works fine
> on 64bits x86 but it will fail on SPARC and other machine which requires
> aligned data.
Did I miss something? My intention was to keep the data aligned so it
should work
on any platform. The patch checks the user-defined data to see if
any column requires
the double storage type. If the double storage type is required, it
uses the MAXALIGN()
macro which preserves the alignment for 64-bit data types. If no
columns require the
double storage type, then the data will be INTALIGN() which still
preserves the alignment
requirements. If I have a complete mis-understanding of this issue,
please explain it
to me and I will either fix it or withdraw the patch.
Thanks for your feedback!
- Ryan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael.McMaster | 2008-10-09 07:11:08 | bytea to XML crash fix |
Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-10-09 05:59:36 | Re: [WIP] Reduce alignment requirements on 64-bit systems. |