| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Reduce TupleHashEntryData struct size by half |
| Date: | 2025-01-14 18:47:32 |
| Message-ID: | ef80cf623dca460ac865869c8b324b501e00052a.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2025-01-14 at 22:01 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> The trick would be to ensure ExecClearTuple() still works.
I'm confused by this. The comment over copy_minimal_slot says:
/*
* Return a copy of minimal tuple representing the contents of the
slot.
* The copy needs to be palloc'd in the current memory context. The
slot
* itself is expected to remain unaffected. It is *not* expected to
have
* meaningful "system columns" in the copy. The copy is not be "owned"
by
* the slot i.e. the caller has to take responsibility to free memory
* consumed by the slot.
*/
So why would ExecClearTuple() be a problem?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2025-01-14 19:01:13 | Re: pgsql: Consolidate docs for vacuum-related GUCs in new subsection |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2025-01-14 18:21:22 | Re: pgsql: Consolidate docs for vacuum-related GUCs in new subsection |