Re: explain analyze timings

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org, "PostgreSQL-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: explain analyze timings
Date: 2005-03-20 22:30:20
Message-ID: 13968.1111357820@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32 pgsql-patches

"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
> Here is a second attempt, hope it's closer to what you expected.

Better --- patch applied with some minor editorialization.

> I still left two #ifdefs in there, for the addition and subtraction of
> timeval:s specifically. They could be made functions/macros too, just
> not sure if it's worth it.

Probably not. What bothers me more is the unconditional use of a
static inline function; but IIRC we are only supporting gcc-based builds
on Windows, so that probably isn't worth fixing either.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2005-03-20 23:09:03 Re: Half filled xlogs
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2005-03-20 18:37:13 Re: explain analyze timings

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2005-03-20 23:08:59 Re: [patch 0/6] pgcrypto update
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2005-03-20 18:37:13 Re: explain analyze timings