From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Chris Dunlop <chris(at)onthe(dot)net(dot)au>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Australian timezone configure option |
Date: | 2001-06-12 16:52:22 |
Message-ID: | 200106121652.f5CGqMZ20608@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I found I didn't need to clear the date cache.
> >>
> >> Hmm, are you sure about that? I'm not.
>
> > I checked and it caches a pointer to the struct, not the values
> > themselves, and we don't change the structure, just the secondary values
> > and not the key used by the bsearch.
>
> Now I'm going to object LOUDLY. You cannot convince me that the above
> is a good implementation --- it's a complete crock, and will break the
> instant someone looks at it sidewise.
>
> My inclination would actually be to rip out the cache entirely. bsearch
> in a table this size is not so expensive that we need to bypass it, nor
> is it apparent that we are going to see lots of successive lookups for
> the same keyword anyway. How long has that cache been in there, and
> what was the motivation for adding it to begin with?
I see the CACHE coming in with:
1.42 (thomas 16-Feb-00): #define USE_DATE_CACHE 1
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-06-12 16:55:04 | Re: Patch to include PAM support... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-12 16:44:57 | Re: Patch to include PAM support... |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-06-12 16:55:04 | Re: Patch to include PAM support... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-12 16:44:57 | Re: Patch to include PAM support... |