| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Usage of epoch in txid_current |
| Date: | 2018-07-16 13:03:39 |
| Message-ID: | 20180716130339.xtgzwb6dgn2blxrc@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-07-15 16:41:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2018-07-09 19:56:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Or, perhaps, use a struct in assert builds and int64 otherwise?
> >> You could hide the ensuing notational differences in macros.
>
> > That should be doable. But I'd like to check if it's necessary
> > first. Optimizing passing an 8 byte struct shouldn't be hard for
> > compilers these days - especially when most things dealing with them are
> > inline functions. If we find that it's not a problem on contemporary
> > compilers, it might be worthwhile to use a bit more type safety in other
> > places too.
>
> [ bunch of test results ]
> Offhand it would seem that we can get away with struct wrappers
> on any platform where performance is really of concern today.
Cool, thanks for checking!
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-07-16 13:06:10 | Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-07-16 12:56:33 | Re: cursors with prepared statements |