On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> It's a very light-weight alternative of memcmp the byte data,
>> but there is still the same issue -- we might have different
>> compressed results if we use different algorithm for TOASTing.
>
> Which makes it a lightweight waste of cycles.
>
>> So, it would be better to apply the present patch as-is.
>
> No, I don't think so. Has any evidence been submitted that that part of
> the patch is of benefit?
I think you might be mixing up what's actually in the patch with
another idea that was proposed but isn't actually in the patch. The
patch itself does nothing controversial.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
