On 1 August 2011 20:53, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> writes:
>> OK, so I should split this into 2 patches?
>> Even without the compression, it's probably worth the 16 -> 10 byte
>> reduction that would result from removing the 2nd CTID in the UPDATE
>> case, and that part would be a pretty small patch.
>
> Yeah, my point exactly. The rest of it might or might not be worth the
> extra complication.
>
OK, here's a patch for the first bit - just removing the second CTID
in the UPDATE case, and including a sanity check of the new tuple's
xmin and cmin.
It passes all the regression tests. I also tested it by doing a 10M
row UPDATE x=x+1 on a deferrable PK, and it gave about the expected
reduction in memory usage, with no difference in run time.
I'll test out the additional compression separately.
Regards,
Dean
