On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 11:43 PM Emre Hasegeli <emre@hasegeli.com> wrote:
> > > The patch looks unduly invasive to me, but I think that it might be
> > > right that we should go back to a macro-based implementation, because
> > > otherwise we don't have a good way to be certain that the function
> > > parameter won't get evaluated first.
> >
> > I'd first like to see some actual evidence of this being a problem,
> > rather than just the order of the checks.
>
> There seem to be enough evidence of this being the problem. We are
> better off going back to the macro-based implementation. I polished
> Keisuke Kuroda's patch commenting about the performance issue, removed
> the check_float*_val() functions completely, and added unlikely() as
> Tom Lane suggested. It is attached. I confirmed with different
> compilers that the macro, and unlikely() makes this noticeably faster.
Thanks for updating the patch.
Should we update the same macro in contrib/btree_gist/btree_utils_num.h too?
Regards,
Amit
