| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid unecessary MemSet call (src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c) |
| Date: | 2022-06-30 22:37:23 |
| Message-ID: | 4772a6f5-0942-e073-965e-d45fd1243765@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 19.05.22 18:09, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> Taking it a step further.
> Created a new patch into commitfest, targeting 16 version.
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3645/
> <https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3645/>
I have committed your 001 patch, which was clearly a (harmless) mistake.
I have also committed a patch that gets rid of MemSet() calls where the
value is a constant not-0, because that just falls back to memset() anyway.
I'm on board with trying to get rid of MemSet(), but first I need to
analyze all the performance numbers and arguments that were shown in
this thread.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-06-30 22:40:23 | Re: doc: Clarify what "excluded" represents for INSERT ON CONFLICT |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-06-30 22:07:11 | Re: doc: Clarify what "excluded" represents for INSERT ON CONFLICT |