On 11.04.22 17:22, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> On 08.04.22 22:26, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> I think we should put a centralized level check
>>>> into logging.c, and get rid of at least the "if (likely())"
>>>> checks, because those are going to succeed approximately 100.0%
>>>> of the time. Maybe there's an argument for keeping the unlikely()
>>>> ones.
>
>> Yeah, that seems ok to change. The previous coding style is more useful
>> if you have a lot of debug messages in a hot code path, but that usually
>> doesn't apply to where this is used.
>
> The patch I presented keeps the unlikely() checks in the debug-level
> macros. Do you think we should drop those too? I figured that avoiding
> evaluating the arguments would be worth something.
Oh, that's right, the whole thing is to not evaluate the arguments if
the log level isn't adequate. We should probably keep that.
Is the code size a big problem? ereport() has a bunch of extra code
around each call as well. Does it have similar problems?
