| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | YANG Xudong <yangxudong(at)ymatrix(dot)cn>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, wengyanqing(at)ymatrix(dot)cn, wanghao(at)ymatrix(dot)cn |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add loongarch native checksum implementation. |
| Date: | 2023-07-26 03:16:28 |
| Message-ID: | ZMCQDL0wTy0/dLoQ@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 02:11:02PM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> Also, please don't top-post (which means: quoting an entire message, with
> new text at the top) -- it clutters our archives.
>
> Before I look at this again: Are there any objections to another CRC
> implementation for the reason of having no buildfarm member?
The performance numbers presented upthread for the CRC computations
are kind of nice in this environment, but honestly I have no idea how
much this architecture is used. Perhaps that's only something in
China? I am not seeing much activity around that in Japan, for
instance, and that's really close.
Anyway, based on today's state of the buildfarm, we have a buildfarm
member named cisticola that should be able to test this new CRC
implementation, so I see no problem in applying this stuff now if you
think it is in good shape.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Guo | 2023-07-26 03:17:44 | Re: BUG #17540: Prepared statement: PG switches to a generic query plan which is consistently much slower |
| Previous Message | YANG Xudong | 2023-07-26 01:25:42 | Re: [PATCH] Add loongarch native checksum implementation. |