Re: [HACKERS] Last infomask bit - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Last infomask bit
Date
Msg-id 200701092235.l09MZIS24866@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Last infomask bit  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Last infomask bit  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Patch applied.  Thanks.
> > I added a comment about the unused bits in the header file.
>
> Has anyone bothered to measure the overhead added by having to mask to
> fetch or store the natts value?  This is not a zero-cost improvement.

I assumed Heikki had tested it, but now see no mention of a test in the
posting:

    http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-01/msg00052.php

Tom, how should this be tested?  I assume some loop of the same query
over and over again.

--
  Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Patch to log usage of temporary files
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Patch to log usage of temporary files