| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com, nospam-pg-abuse(at)bloodgate(dot)com, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, keisuke kuroda <keisuke(dot)kuroda(dot)3862(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: In PG12, query with float calculations is slower than PG11 |
| Date: | 2020-02-13 17:42:11 |
| Message-ID: | 9367.1581615731@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On February 13, 2020 8:30:45 AM PST, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I see some minor things I don't like here, eg float_*flow_error()
>> need some documentation as to why they exist. But I'll review,
>> fix those things up and then push.
> Would be good to mark them noreturn too.
Yeah, that was one of the things I didn't like ;-). Also the lack
of pg_noinline.
> Wonder if it's useful to add the"cold" marker to pg. Not as part of this patch, but for functions like these.
I'm only seeing about a 1.5kB reduction in the backend size from
this patch, which kinda surprises me, but it says that we're
not winning all that much from just having one copy of the ereport
calls. So I don't think that "cold" is going to add much.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-02-13 17:43:38 | Re: In PG12, query with float calculations is slower than PG11 |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-02-13 17:23:40 | Re: In PG12, query with float calculations is slower than PG11 |