Re: Don't use bms_membership in places where it's not needed

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Don't use bms_membership in places where it's not needed
Date: 2023-11-27 23:16:21
Message-ID: CAApHDvpVWpY0JVC22zJuuiU=Y5VmDm6RFg64-9Lh+-3a-=-dDA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 at 11:21, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Hm, does this ever matter from a performance POV? The current code does look
> simpler to read to me. If the overhead is relevant, I'd instead just move the
> code into a static inline?

I didn't particularly find the code in examine_variable() easy to
read. I think what's there now is quite a bit better than what was
there.

bms_get_singleton_member() was added in d25367ec4 for this purpose, so
it seems kinda weird not to use it.

David

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeremy Schneider 2023-11-27 23:35:19 Re: proposal: change behavior on collation version mismatch
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2023-11-27 22:53:37 Re: GUC names in messages