Itagaki Takahiro <[email protected]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 05:39, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I haven't looked at this patch, but it seems to me that it would be
>> reasonable to conclude A != B if the va_extsize values in the toast
>> pointers don't agree.
> 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?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
