From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: repeat() function, CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), and unlikely() |
Date: | 2020-06-04 20:48:19 |
Message-ID: | 4d5b11b0-d241-d95c-9752-b0ec380dccf7@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/28/20 1:23 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 5/27/20 3:29 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> I backpatched and pushed the changes to the repeat() function. Any other
> opinions regarding backpatch of the unlikely() addition to CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()?
So far I have
Tom +1
Michael -1
me +0
on backpatching the addition of unlikely() to CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS().
Assuming no one else chimes in I will push the attached to all supported
branches sometime before Tom creates the REL_13_STABLE branch on Sunday.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
unlikely-check4int-01.diff | text/x-patch | 982 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-06-04 21:20:57 | Re: repeat() function, CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), and unlikely() |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-06-04 20:44:53 | Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical () at walsender.c:2762 |