On 1/26/19 11:20 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 1/26/19 9:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund writes:
>>> The buildfarm largely seems to have had no problem with it, but handfish
>>> failed:
>>> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=handfish&dt=2019-01-26%2022%3A57%3A19
>>>
Hi,
On 2019-01-27 08:03:17 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> I assume you already considered and rejected having a fixed size null
> bitmap followed by a variable size array of datums. That seems like it
> would be denser and work better with cpu cache.
It'd be more expensive to access individually (off
I assume you already considered and rejected having a fixed size null
bitmap followed by a variable size array of datums. That seems like it
would be denser and work better with cpu cache.
I guess the reason you prefer the struct is because it can be used
elsewhere on its own?
On 1/26/19 9:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>> The buildfarm largely seems to have had no problem with it, but handfish
>> failed:
>> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=handfish&dt=2019-01-26%2022%3A57%3A19
>> but I have no idea what the error is, nor whether
Andres Freund writes:
> The buildfarm largely seems to have had no problem with it, but handfish
> failed:
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=handfish&dt=2019-01-26%2022%3A57%3A19
> but I have no idea what the error is, nor whether it's related to this
> failure, because for
Hi,
On 2019-01-25 12:51:02 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Updated patch attached. Besides the above changes, there's a fair bit
> of comment changes, and I've implemented the necessary JIT changes.
I pushed a further polished version of this.
The buildfarm largely seems to have had no problem wi
Hi,
On 2018-12-15 10:45:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Gierth writes:
> > "Andres" == Andres Freund writes:
> >> I think it'd probably good to add accessors for value/nullness in
> >> arguments that hide the difference between >> sake of extension authors. Would probably mostly make sense i
Andrew Gierth writes:
> "Andres" == Andres Freund writes:
>> I think it'd probably good to add accessors for value/nullness in
>> arguments that hide the difference between > sake of extension authors. Would probably mostly make sense if we
>> backpatched those for compatibility.
> Speaking as a
> "Andres" == Andres Freund writes:
>> I think it'd probably good to add accessors for value/nullness in
>> arguments that hide the difference between > sake of extension authors. Would probably mostly make sense if we
>> backpatched those for compatibility.
Speaking as an affected extens
Hi,
On 2018-10-09 12:18:02 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Here's an updated version of the patch. Besides a rebase the biggest
> change is that I've wrapped:
>
> On 2018-06-05 10:29:52 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > There's some added uglyness, which I hope we can polish a bit
> > further. Right
Hi,
On 2018-06-05 15:08:33 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 6/5/18 13:29, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Besides the change here, I think we should also go much further with the
> > conversion to NullableDatum. There's two main areas of change: I want
> > to move the execExpr.c related code so steps
On 6/5/18 13:29, Andres Freund wrote:
> Besides the change here, I think we should also go much further with the
> conversion to NullableDatum. There's two main areas of change: I want
> to move the execExpr.c related code so steps return data into
> NullableDatums - that removes a good chunk of p
Yeah, our approach had to mergeable. You can rip that bandaid.
Hi,
On 2018-06-05 10:40:22 -0700, se...@rielau.com wrote:
> Big +1 on this one.
Cool.
> Here is what we did. It's very crude, but minimized the amount of pain:
I think I'd rather go for my approach in core though. Needlessly
carrying around a bunch of pointers, and adding the necessary
indirec
Big +1 on this one.
Here is what we did. It's very crude, but minimized the amount of pain:
It helps that the C compiler treats arrays and pointers the same.
I can dig for the complete patch if you want...
Cheers
Serge
/*
* This struct is the data actually passed to an fmgr-called function
15 matches
Mail list logo
