| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: repeat() function, CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), and unlikely() |
| Date: | 2020-05-27 07:29:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20200527072927.GE103662@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 11:14:39AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Perhaps I'm an optimist, but I think that eventually we will figure out
> how to make unlikely() work for MSVC. In the meantime we might as well
> let it work for gcc-on-Windows builds.
I am less optimistic than that, but there is hope. This was mentioned
as something considered for implementation in April 2019:
https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/idea/488669/please-add-likelyunlikely-builtins.html
> I think that each of those tests should have a separate unlikely() marker,
> since the whole point here is that we don't expect either of those tests
> to yield true in the huge majority of CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS executions.
+1. I am not sure that the addition of unlikely() should be
backpatched though, that's not something usually done.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-05-27 07:35:51 | Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size comment in postgresql.conf |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2020-05-27 07:23:31 | Re: Getting ERROR with FOR UPDATE/SHARE for partitioned table. |