| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Frontend error logging style |
| Date: | 2022-04-11 15:22:40 |
| Message-ID: | 274816.1649690560@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 08.04.22 22:26, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think we should put a centralized level check
>>> into logging.c, and get rid of at least the "if (likely())"
>>> checks, because those are going to succeed approximately 100.0%
>>> of the time. Maybe there's an argument for keeping the unlikely()
>>> ones.
> Yeah, that seems ok to change. The previous coding style is more useful
> if you have a lot of debug messages in a hot code path, but that usually
> doesn't apply to where this is used.
The patch I presented keeps the unlikely() checks in the debug-level
macros. Do you think we should drop those too? I figured that avoiding
evaluating the arguments would be worth something.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-04-11 15:34:32 | Re: Schema variables - new implementation for Postgres 15+1 |
| Previous Message | Zhihong Yu | 2022-04-11 15:16:07 | Re: CLUSTER on partitioned index |