Re: repeat() function, CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), and unlikely()
От | Joe Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: repeat() function, CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), and unlikely() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9706845c-3b28-6643-8c26-0b129306e786@joeconway.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | repeat() function, CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), and unlikely() (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: repeat() function, CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), and unlikely()
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/12/20 8:06 AM, Joe Conway wrote: > I was doing some memory testing under fractional CPU allocations and it became > painfully obvious that the repeat() function needs CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(). > > I exchanged a few emails offlist with Tom about it, and (at the risk of putting > words in his mouth) he agreed and felt it was a candidate for backpatching. > > Very small patch attached. Quick and dirty performance test: <snip> > While discussing the above, Tom also wondered whether we should add unlikely() > to the CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() macro. > > Small patch for that also attached. I was not sure about the WIN32 stanza on > that (to do it or not; if so, what about the UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE() test). > > I tested as above with unlikely() and did not see any discernible difference, > but the added check might improve other code paths. > > Comments or objections? Seeing none ... I intend to backpatch and push these two patches in the next day or so. Joe -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: