Neil Conway neil.con...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Should we back-patch this change? Seems like it's arguably a
performance bug.
Sounds good to me.
Committed and back-patched.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent
Neil Conway neil.con...@gmail.com writes:
Hi Neil! Long time no see.
spi_printtup() has the following code (spi.c:1798):
if (tuptable-free == 0)
{
tuptable-free = 256;
tuptable-alloced += tuptable-free;
tuptable-vals =
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Hi Neil! Long time no see.
Likewise :)
Attached is a one-liner to double the size of the table when space is
exhausted.
I think this could use a comment, but otherwise seems OK.
Attached is a revised patch with a comment.
spi_printtup() has the following code (spi.c:1798):
if (tuptable-free == 0)
{
tuptable-free = 256;
tuptable-alloced += tuptable-free;
tuptable-vals = (HeapTuple *) repalloc(tuptable-vals,
tuptable-alloced * sizeof(HeapTuple));
