On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Mithun Cy <mithun...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> Hi Amit, Thanks for the review, >> >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> idea could be to make hashm_spares a two-dimensional array >>> hashm_spares[32][4] where the first dimension will indicate the split >>> point and second will indicate the sub-split number. I am not sure >>> whether it will be simpler or complex than the method used in the >>> proposed patch, but I think we should think a bit more to see if we >>> can come up with some simple technique to solve this problem. >> >> I think making it a 2-dimensional array will not be any useful in fact >> we really treat the given array 2-dimensional elements now. >> > > Sure, I was telling you based on that. If you are implicitly treating > it as 2-dimensional array, it might be easier to compute the array > offsets. >
The above sentence looks incomplete. If you are implicitly treating it as a 2-dimensional array, it might be easier to compute the array offsets if you explicitly also treats as a 2-dimensional array. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
