Re: Using per-transaction memory contexts for storing decoded tuples

On 2024/10/03 13:47, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> I agree that the overhead will be much less visible in real workloads.
>>> +1 to use a smaller block (i.e. 8kB).

+1


>>> It's easy to backpatch to old
>>> branches (if we agree)

+1


>> It seems that
>> only reorderbuffer.c uses the LARGE macro so that it can be removed.
> 
> I'm going to keep the LARGE macro since extensions might be using it.

Yes, for the back-patch. But in the master branch,
we basically don't need to maintain this kind of compatibility?

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION