| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review of Refactoring code for sync node detection |
| Date: | 2014-10-30 21:59:23 |
| Message-ID: | 5452B4BB.8020704@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/30/14, 8:05 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> This switches from using a single if() with multiple conditions &&'d
>> together to a bunch of if() continue's. I don't know if those will perform
>> the same, and AFAIK this is pretty performance critical.
> Well, we could still use the old notation with a single if(). That's
> not much complicated to change.
I actually prefer the multiple if's; it reads a LOT cleaner. I don't know what the compiler will do with it though.
If we stick with this version I'd argue it makes more sense to just stick the sync_node = and priority = statements into the if block and ditch the continue. </nitpick>
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-30 22:03:27 | Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-10-30 21:55:45 | Re: TAP test breakage on MacOS X |