Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@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.

                        regards, tom lane

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to