Tom, thanks for your answer. It definitely makes a picture in my mind
more clear.
вт, 2 апр. 2019 г. в 18:41, Tom Lane :
>
> =?UTF-8?B?0J/QsNCy0LvRg9GF0LjQvSDQmNCy0LDQvQ==?= writes:
> >> (1) Backwards compatibility, and (2) it's not clear that a different
> >> layout would be a win for all cases.
=?UTF-8?B?0J/QsNCy0LvRg9GF0LjQvSDQmNCy0LDQvQ==?= writes:
>> (1) Backwards compatibility, and (2) it's not clear that a different
>> layout would be a win for all cases.
> I am curious regarding (2), for my understanding it is good to find
> out at least one case when layout with lengths/offsets i
Tom,
Thank you.
> (1) Backwards compatibility, and (2) it's not clear that a different
> layout would be a win for all cases.
I am curious regarding (2), for my understanding it is good to find
out at least one case when layout with lengths/offsets in a header
will be crucially worse. I will be h
=?UTF-8?B?0J/QsNCy0LvRg9GF0LjQvSDQmNCy0LDQvQ==?= writes:
> Does anyone know why the format is still the same?
(1) Backwards compatibility, and (2) it's not clear that a different
layout would be a win for all cases.
regards, tom lane
