| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Robert Haas <rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Further code review for pg_lsn data type. |
| Date: | 2014-02-20 15:27:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20140220152711.GT28858@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On 2014-02-20 10:25:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2014-02-20 09:59:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think you're making a problem out of nothing. We have considerably
> >> more-real portability issues to worry about, like memory ordering.
>
> > I don't think it's a huge problem, but it's pretty easy to avoid, so why
> > not avoid it?
>
> It's *not* that easy to avoid. If we turn Datum into a struct we face a
> very significant risk of performance problems
All that's needed in this case is to copy DatumGetInt64/Int64GetDatum's definition and
avoid the intermediatry casts to int64.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2014-02-21 02:46:53 | pgsql: doc: Clarify documentation page header customization code |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-20 15:25:20 | Re: pgsql: Further code review for pg_lsn data type. |