Re: Shave a few instructions from child-process startup sequence
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Shave a few instructions from child-process startup sequence |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 30960.1383279615@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Shave a few instructions from child-process startup sequence (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Shave a few instructions from child-process startup sequence
Re: Shave a few instructions from child-process startup sequence Re: Shave a few instructions from child-process startup sequence |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im> wrote: >> Just a small patch; hopefully useful. > This is valid saving as we are filling array ListenSocket[] in > StreamServerPort() serially, so during ClosePostmasterPorts() once if > it encountered PGINVALID_SOCKET, it is valid to break the loop. > Although savings are small considering this doesn't occur in any > performance path, still I think this is right thing to do in code. > It is better to register this patch in CF app list, unless someone > feels this is not right. I think this is adding fragility for absolutely no meaningful savings. The existing code does not depend on the assumption that the array is filled consecutively and no entries are closed early. Why should we add such an assumption here? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: