Обсуждение: pgsql: Add assert checking to pg_leftmost_one_pos32() and friends
Add assert checking to pg_leftmost_one_pos32() and friends Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFBsxsEPc%2BFnX_0vmmQ5DHv60sk4rL_RZJ%2BMD6ei%3D76L0kFMvA%40mail.gmail.com Branch ------ master Details ------- https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/204b0cbecb82ab3fde2e12998a89e7227cd64094 Modified Files -------------- src/include/port/pg_bitutils.h | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
John Naylor <john.naylor@postgresql.org> writes:
> Add assert checking to pg_leftmost_one_pos32() and friends
I can see that this was worth writing for testing purposes, but
is it really worth carrying permanently? Even in a debug build,
the ratio of cycles expended to chances of finding a problem seems
mighty poor, and you've done a lot of damage to the readability
of these functions too.
Maybe we could condition the duplicate computation on some
additional not-commonly-defined macro? That'd do little for the
readability issue though.
regards, tom lane
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 10:17 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> John Naylor <john.naylor@postgresql.org> writes:
> > Add assert checking to pg_leftmost_one_pos32() and friends
>
> I can see that this was worth writing for testing purposes, but
> is it really worth carrying permanently? Even in a debug build,
> the ratio of cycles expended to chances of finding a problem seems
> mighty poor, and you've done a lot of damage to the readability
> of these functions too.
That's a fair point, and it's doubtful we'll need to add another platform anytime soon. I'll work on removing the asserts.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 11:59 AM John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 10:17 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> > John Naylor <john.naylor@postgresql.org> writes:
> > > Add assert checking to pg_leftmost_one_pos32() and friends
> >
> > I can see that this was worth writing for testing purposes, but
> > is it really worth carrying permanently? Even in a debug build,
> > the ratio of cycles expended to chances of finding a problem seems
> > mighty poor, and you've done a lot of damage to the readability
> > of these functions too.
>
> That's a fair point, and it's doubtful we'll need to add another platform anytime soon. I'll work on removing the asserts.
The attached is closer to the previous coding and passes CI. I'll indent and push this tomorrow after giving it another look, unless there is further review.
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com