On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> opinion isn't strong in this topic. One or twenty useless detoasting
>>> isn't really significant in almost use cases (problem is thousands
>>> detoasting).
>
>> Yeah. Many-times-repeated detoasting is really bad, and this is not
>> the only place in the backend where we have this problem. :-(
>
> Yeah, there's been some discussion of a more general solution, and I
> think I even had a trial patch at one point (which turned out not to
> work terribly well, but maybe somebody will have a better idea someday).
I'm pretty doubtful that there's going to be a general solution to
this problem - I think it's going to require gradual refactoring of
problem spots.
> In the meantime, the proposal at hand seems like a bit of a stop-gap,
> which is why I'd prefer to see something with a very minimal code
> footprint. Detoast at assignment would likely need only a few lines
> of code added in a single place.
OK.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company