| From: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Large writable variables |
| Date: | 2018-10-16 20:38:18 |
| Message-ID: | d3e13424-b3b6-cbac-f45a-da055696234c@archidevsys.co.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17/10/2018 09:36, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> Attached is a patch that shrinks fmgr_builtins by 25%. That seems
>> worthwhile, it's pretty frequently accessed, making it more dense is
>> helpful. Unless somebody protests soon, I'm going to apply that...
> Hah. I'm pretty sure that struct *was* set up with an eye to padding ...
> on 32-bit machines. This does make it shorter on 64-bit, but also
> makes the size not a power of 2, which might add a few cycles to
> array indexing calculations. Might be worth checking whether that's
> going to be an issue anywhere.
>
> What's the point of the extra const decoration on funcName? ISTM
> the whole struct should be const, or not.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Would it be useful to add dummy variable(s) to bring it up to a power of 2?
Cheers,
Gavin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-10-16 20:47:28 | Re: Large writable variables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-16 20:36:12 | Re: Large writable variables |