Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 22:43, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The only objection I can think of is that perhaps this would slow
>> things down a tad by requiring more complicated shifting/masking.
>> I wonder if we could redo the performance checks that were done
>> on the way to accepting the current design.
> I didn't do very extensive testing, but the light performance tests
> that I did with the palloc performance benchmark patch & script shared
> above indicate didn't measure an observable negative effect.
OK. I did not read the patch very closely, but at least in principle
I have no further objections. David, are you planning to take point
on getting this in?
regards, tom lane