Re: replicating DROP commands across servers
От | David Rowley |
---|---|
Тема | Re: replicating DROP commands across servers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHoyFK9YmTDmqEU_pjJ4e-0=CZuY400mo9=xE4wACmrkVeA+hg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: replicating DROP commands across servers (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 25 December 2014 at 04:47, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
David Rowley <dgrowley@gmail.com> writes:
> On 25 December 2014 at 00:34, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> I really wonder if we can't make msvc reliably recognize this kind of
>> scenario - especially this case is pretty trivial?
> The attached patch removes the warning, but likely can't be used in case
> someone somewhere is doing elog(var++, "my error");
Yeah, we're *not* doing that. There are definitely places where
ereport/elog are used with nonconstant elevel.
Agreed. The patch was intended as a demo of where the problem is. Although I don't see why non-const elevel matters. Non-stable expressions are what actually matter.
It's curious though that MSVC fails to notice that the variable never
changes. I wonder whether we could get away with changing the elog
macro to do
const int elevel_ = (elevel);
as ereport does, and whether it would help if so.
Unlikely, as the one that was just fixed above is an ereport.
I'll dig around a little more and see if there's some way to get MSVC to optimise this somehow. The 1% reduction in the postgres.exe seems worth a little bit of investigation time.
Regards
David Rowley
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: