Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Date
Msg-id 55CBADDE.1050803@iki.fi
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 08/12/2015 11:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> The only actual separate patch since then (fastgetattr as inline
>> function) was posted 2015-08-05 and I yesterday suggested to push it
>> today. And it's just replacing two existing macros by inline functions.
>
> I'm a little concerned about that one.  Your testing shows that's a
> win for you, but is it a win for everyone?  Maybe we should go ahead
> and do it anyway, but I'm not sure.

Andres didn't mention how big the performance benefit he saw with 
pgbench was, but I bet it was barely distinguishible from noise. But 
that's OK. In fact, there's no reason to believe this would make any 
difference to performance. The point is to make the code more readable, 
and it certainly achieves that.

- Heikki




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Next
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: checkpointer continuous flushing