Re: Remove fls(), use pg_bitutils.h facilities instead?

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Remove fls(), use pg_bitutils.h facilities instead?
Date: 2022-07-20 05:26:10
Message-ID: CA+hUKGKxEFEVNDbxauxsiFODwz87J34KfxzkL3CZH-mK=zFLkA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 4:52 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think we could probably just drop fls() entirely. It doesn't look
> to me like any of the existing callers expect a zero argument, so they
> could be converted to use pg_leftmost_one_pos32() pretty trivially.
> I don't see that fls() is buying us anything that is worth requiring
> readers to know yet another nonstandard function.

That was not true for the case in contiguous_pages_to_segment_bin(),
in dsa.c. If it's just one place like that (and, hrrm, curiously
there is an open issue about binning quality on my to do list...),
then perhaps we should just open code it there. The attached doesn't
trigger the assertion that work != 0 in a simple make check.

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-Remove-fls-function.patch text/x-patch 9.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2022-07-20 05:26:39 Re: Add proper planner support for ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates
Previous Message Justin Kwan 2022-07-20 05:20:18 Re: Making pg_rewind faster