Ryan Bradetich napsal(a):
Hello Zdenek,
Hello Ryan,
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Zdenek Kotala 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?
Yaah, wait until 8.5 :-). However, currently there is no clear consensus which
upgrade method is best. I hope that It will clear after Prato developers
meeting. Until this meeting I cannot say more.
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
I overlooked 'd' test. Your idea seems to me reasonable. Maybe, you could test
'd' alignment only for NOT NULL values.
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.
The problem there is add_item which it is used for indexes as well and they has
IndexTupleHeader structure. I'm not convenience about idea has two different
alignment for items on page.

I guess another problem is with MAX_TUPLE_CHUNK_SIZE which uses MAXALIGN for
computing. It seems to me that toast chunk could waste a space anyway.

And of course you should bump page layout version.

I also suggest create function/macro to compute hoff and replace code with this


Zdenek Kotala Sun Microsystems
Prague, Czech Republic http://sun.com/postgresql

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 4 of 10 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
postedOct 9, '08 at 5:39a
activeJan 8, '09 at 8:49p



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase