Re: Plan for compressed varlena headers

On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 10:42:49AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > #define VARDATA_4B(PTR) ((PTR)->va_4byte.va_data)
> > #define VARDATA_2B(PTR) ((PTR)->va_2byte.va_data)
> > #define VARDATA_1B(PTR) ((PTR)->va_1byte.va_data)
> I thought we had abandoned the 2-byte-header variant? Maybe you need to
> start a separate thread about exactly which of the bit-level proposals
> you want to implement. There were quite a few tradeoffs discussed in
> the previous thread IIRC.

I agreed with Tom in the last thread. The 2 byte case doesn't seem like
good value for the return.

Simpler analysis results in easier to optimize code for the compiler,
and less complexity stored on disk.

Please remove 2B. :-)

Cheers,
mark

--
mark(at)mielke(dot)cc / markm(at)ncf(dot)ca / markm(at)nortel(dot)com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...

http://mark.mielke.cc/