On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> opinion isn't strong in this topic. One or twenty useless detoasting >>> isn't really significant in almost use cases (problem is thousands >>> detoasting). > >> Yeah. Many-times-repeated detoasting is really bad, and this is not >> the only place in the backend where we have this problem. :-( > > Yeah, there's been some discussion of a more general solution, and I > think I even had a trial patch at one point (which turned out not to > work terribly well, but maybe somebody will have a better idea someday).
I'm pretty doubtful that there's going to be a general solution to this problem - I think it's going to require gradual refactoring of problem spots. > In the meantime, the proposal at hand seems like a bit of a stop-gap, > which is why I'd prefer to see something with a very minimal code > footprint. Detoast at assignment would likely need only a few lines > of code added in a single place. OK. -- 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