Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> writes: > OK, so I should split this into 2 patches? > Even without the compression, it's probably worth the 16 -> 10 byte > reduction that would result from removing the 2nd CTID in the UPDATE > case, and that part would be a pretty small patch.
Yeah, my point exactly. The rest of it might or might not be worth the extra complication. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers