Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> It's certainly possible that there is a test case for which Heikki's
>> approach is superior, but if so we haven't seen it. And since it's
>> approach is also more complicated, sticking with the simpler
>> lengths-only approach seems like the way to go.
> Huh, OK. I'm slightly surprised, but that's why we benchmark these things.
The argument for Heikki's patch was never that it would offer better
performance; it's obvious (at least to me) that it won't. The argument
was that it'd be upward-compatible with what we're doing now, so that
we'd not have to force an on-disk compatibility break with 9.4beta2.
regards, tom lane
