On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 9:35 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> I, more generally, wonder if there's not a case to squeeze out more
> padding than "just" what you describe (since we IIRC don't frequently
> keep pointers into such tuples anyway, and definitely don't for byval
> attrs). But that's very likely better done separately.
There is one way that that is kind of relevant here. The current
requirement seems to be that *any* sort of tuple header be
MAXALIGN()'d, because in the worst case the first attribute needs to
be accessed at a MAXALIGN()'d boundary on an alignment-picky platform.
That isn't so bad today, since we usually find a reasonably good way
to put those 8 bytes (or 23/24 bytes in the case of heap tuples) to
use. However, with varwidth table identifiers, the only use of those 8
bytes that I can think of is the offset to the identifier (or perhaps
its length), plus the usual t_info stuff. We'd almost invariably waste
4 or 5 bytes, which seems like a problem to me.
--
Peter Geoghegan