On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 at 20:14, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> 2) On HEAD at 49d6c7d8daba:
> .LVL299:
> .loc 1 131 16 is_stmt 0 discriminator 1 view .LVU524
> cmpq $8192, %rbx
> je .L419
>
> 3) With the patch sent at [1]:
> .LVL306:
> .loc 3 201 23 is_stmt 1 discriminator 1 view .LVU545
> cmpq $8192, %rbx
> jne .L417
>
> So it does not matter one way or another for 2) or 3), does it?
The patch in [1] will fix the bug. But I'm still concerned about the
performance implications of moving to byte-at-a-time processing. There
are about 8 times more instructions being expected to do the same
work.
David
> [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZyR02ofHiWG1HmLI@paquier.xyz