| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: inline newNode() |
| Date: | 2002-10-08 15:53:52 |
| Message-ID: | 2532.1034092432@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> I don't like making the code GCC-specific any more than anyone else
> does, but given that the code-bloat is specific to the inline version
> of newNode (which in the scheme I described earlier would be
> GCC-only) -- so introducing a GCC-specific fix for a GCC-specific
> problem isn't too bad, IMHO.
> Or we could just use your other suggestion: define a variant of
> MemSet() and use it when we know it's safe. Not sure which is the
> better solution: any comments?
If we're going with a GCC-only approach to inlining newNode then it
seems like a tossup to me too. Any other thoughts out there?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-08 16:01:35 | Re: Where to call SetQuerySnapshot |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-08 15:51:12 | Re: [GENERAL] Large databases, performance |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-08 16:04:35 | Re: inline newNode() |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-10-08 04:58:34 | Re: inline newNode() |