| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: extensible enums |
| Date: | 2010-10-20 22:54:05 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinef2UYmru5aAOc3oxjKDkw_XU1+Sraroh4y29i@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> Efficiency has always been one of the major reasons for using enums, so
> it's important that we make them extensible without badly affecting
> performance.
on that note is it worthwhile backpatching recent versions to allocate
enums with even numbered oids? That way people binary upgrading can
get the benefit of the optimization they should qualify for...
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-20 22:54:42 | Re: default_statistics_target WAS: max_wal_senders must die |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-10-20 22:38:45 | Re: default_statistics_target WAS: max_wal_senders must die |