| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: MemSet inline for newNode |
| Date: | 2002-11-11 18:08:30 |
| Message-ID: | 3167.1037038110@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I can't do MemSet in a macro that returns a value, as palloc requires.
> MemSet has a loop, and that can't be done in a macro that returns a value.
Hm. How did Neil test this originally --- was he relying on being able
to "inline" newNode()?
Anyway, I don't think that passing an extra parameter can be a win.
If there has to be a runtime test, testing whether the two low bits
of the length are zero is probably about the same speed as testing a
boolean parameter. It's unlikely to be enough slower to justify the
cost of passing another parameter.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert E. Bruccoleri | 2002-11-11 19:07:13 | Re: Problem with 7.3 on Irix with dates before 1970 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-11 16:56:35 | Re: Implicit coercions, choosing types for constants, etc (yet again) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-11-11 18:14:38 | Re: minor SGML fix |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-11-11 16:40:02 | Re: MemSet inline for newNode |