Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 13:07, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> With regard to this point, I second Tomas's comments.
> I also agree with Tomas' comments. I am explaining *why* it will be an > improvement, expanding on my earlier notes. > This function is called extremely frequently in query processing and is > fairly efficient. I'm pointing out cases where making it even quicker makes > sense.
I think the point is that you haven't demonstrated that this particular patch makes it quicker.
Not yet, but I was trying to agree what an appropriate test would be before running it.
