| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 |
| Date: | 2015-08-12 20:34:38 |
| Message-ID: | 55CBADDE.1050803@iki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/12/2015 11:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> The only actual separate patch since then (fastgetattr as inline
>> function) was posted 2015-08-05 and I yesterday suggested to push it
>> today. And it's just replacing two existing macros by inline functions.
>
> I'm a little concerned about that one. Your testing shows that's a
> win for you, but is it a win for everyone? Maybe we should go ahead
> and do it anyway, but I'm not sure.
Andres didn't mention how big the performance benefit he saw with
pgbench was, but I bet it was barely distinguishible from noise. But
that's OK. In fact, there's no reason to believe this would make any
difference to performance. The point is to make the code more readable,
and it certainly achieves that.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-08-12 20:34:59 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-08-12 20:25:17 | Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 |