Hi,
On 2023-03-21 20:20:40 +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 at 19:55, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > > FWIW, I think we should consider getting rid of attcacheoff. I doubt it's
> > > worth its weight these days, because deforming via slots starts at the
> > > beginning anyway. The overhead of maintaining it is not insubstantial, and
> > > it's just architecturally ugly to to update tupledescs continually.
> >
> > I'd be for that if we can convince ourselves there's not a material
> > speed penalty. As you say, it's quite ugly.
>
> Yes, attcacheoff is a tremendous performance boon in many cases.
Which? We don't use fastgetattr() in many places these days. And in some quick
measurements it's a wash or small loss when deforming slot tuples, even when
the attcacheoff optimization would apply, because the branches for managing it
add more overhead than they safe.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
