Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2021-10-26 13:51:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'd be inclined to just hard-wire the three allowed cases, and not have
>> an arbitrary-divisor code path at all.
> Yea, I came to the same conclusion. But I'd implement it by moving the
> division into a separate inline function called from the switch. I tested that
> locally and it works, but I got sidetracked by [1].
Uh, why not just a "switch (base)" around three copies of the loop?
Don't overthink this.
regards, tom lane