On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 9:08 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Yeah. Nevertheless, it would be nice to be able to demonstrate the
> benefit in some test, at least. It feels hard to justify committing a
> performance patch if we can't show the benefit. Otherwise, we should
> just try to keep it as simp
On 02/01/2020 01:15, John Naylor wrote:
I wrote:
Currently, we include the function name string in each FmgrBuiltin
struct, whose size is 24 bytes on 64 bit platforms. As far as I can
tell, the name is usually unused, so the attached (WIP, untested)
patch stores it separately, reducing this str
I wrote:
> Currently, we include the function name string in each FmgrBuiltin
> struct, whose size is 24 bytes on 64 bit platforms. As far as I can
> tell, the name is usually unused, so the attached (WIP, untested)
> patch stores it separately, reducing this struct to 16 bytes.
>
> We can go one
Hi all,
Currently, we include the function name string in each FmgrBuiltin
struct, whose size is 24 bytes on 64 bit platforms. As far as I can
tell, the name is usually unused, so the attached (WIP, untested)
patch stores it separately, reducing this struct to 16 bytes.
We can go one step further
