On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 21:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Oh, wait, that's just a -patches entry; it doesn't look like Neil
ever committed it. Neil, how come?
Sorry, slipped through the cracks -- I've now committed the patch.
-Neil
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Added to TODO:
* Avoid tuple some tuple copying in sort routines
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-02/msg01206.php
---
Tom Lane wrote:
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I notice that several of
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Added to TODO:
* Avoid tuple some tuple copying in sort routines
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-02/msg01206.php
Actually ... isn't this done already?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2008-02/msg00176.php
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Added to TODO:
* Avoid tuple some tuple copying in sort routines
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-02/msg01206.php
Actually ... isn't this done already?
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Actually ... isn't this done already?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2008-02/msg00176.php
Yea, removed because I thought you just did it.
Oh, wait, that's just a -patches entry; it doesn't look like Neil
ever committed it.
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Actually ... isn't this done already?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2008-02/msg00176.php
Yea, removed because I thought you just did it.
Oh, wait, that's just a -patches entry; it doesn't look like
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Oh, wait, that's just a -patches entry; it doesn't look like Neil
ever committed it. Neil, how come?
I thought this was Neil's commit that you just did:
No, the one I just put in was the one you have listed under Avoid
needless copy in
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Oh, wait, that's just a -patches entry; it doesn't look like Neil
ever committed it. Neil, how come?
I thought this was Neil's commit that you just did:
No, the one I just put in was the one you have listed
I notice that several of the call sites of tuplestore_puttuple() start
with arrays of datums and nulls, call heap_form_tuple(), and then switch
into the tstore's context and call tuplestore_puttuple(), which
deep-copies the HeapTuple into the tstore. ISTM it would be faster and
simpler to provide
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I notice that several of the call sites of tuplestore_puttuple() start
with arrays of datums and nulls, call heap_form_tuple(), and then switch
into the tstore's context and call tuplestore_puttuple(), which
deep-copies the HeapTuple into the tstore. ISTM
10 matches
Mail list logo
