On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Tom Lane <t...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
