On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 06:26, Tom Lane wrote:
> Pushed with some fiddling with the comment.
Great. Thanks!
> I wasn't excited about the test case you offered --- on HEAD, it pretty
> much all devolves to file access operations (probably, checking the
> current length of all the child relations).
David Rowley writes:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 17:50, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm, are you thinking of making BITS_PER_BITMAPWORD match sizeof(Pointer)
>> or something like that? That seems like a good compromise from here.
> Yeah, something along those lines. I've implemented that in the attached.
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 17:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
> > However, I doubt it would take much more effort to maintain
> > using 32-bit sets on 32-bit machines. If someone feels strongly about
> > that then I can adjust the patch to allow that.
>
> Hm, are you thinking of making BI
David Rowley writes:
> I've attached the trivial patch which implements 64-bit Bitmapsets.
> One caveat about this may be that it will likely slow performance for
> 32-bit machines. My current thinking about that is that such a
> platform is likely not that common a target for the latest version
