Thread: [PATCH]Remove obsolete macro CHECKFLOATVAL in btree_gist
Hi Commit 6bf0bc842 replaced float.c's CHECKFLOATVAL() macro with static inline subroutines, but the fix introduced a performance regression as Tom Lane pointed out and fixed at 607f8ce74. Found obsolete CHECKFLOATVAL usage in contrib/btree_gist, and tried to fix it according to 607f8ce74. The attached patch has been testified in master. All tap tests passed. Regards, Tang
Attachment
On Friday, August 6, 2021 11:14 PM, tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com <tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: >Commit 6bf0bc842 replaced float.c's CHECKFLOATVAL() macro with static inline subroutines, >but the fix introduced a performance regression as Tom Lane pointed out and fixed at 607f8ce74. > >Found obsolete CHECKFLOATVAL usage in contrib/btree_gist, and tried to fix it according to 607f8ce74. Added above patch in commit fest: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/34/3287/ Regards, Tang
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:08:59AM +0000, tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com wrote: > On Friday, August 6, 2021 11:14 PM, tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com <tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: >> Commit 6bf0bc842 replaced float.c's CHECKFLOATVAL() macro with static inline subroutines, >> but the fix introduced a performance regression as Tom Lane pointed out and fixed at 607f8ce74. >> >> Found obsolete CHECKFLOATVAL usage in contrib/btree_gist, and tried to fix it according to 607f8ce74. > > Added above patch in commit fest: > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/34/3287/ Yes, that does not seem wise on performance grounds. The case of !zero_is_valid is never reached, so it seems like this code was just a copy-paste from the float code in the backend. Your patch looks right to me. -- Michael
Attachment
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:04:04AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Yes, that does not seem wise on performance grounds. The case of > !zero_is_valid is never reached, so it seems like this code was just a > copy-paste from the float code in the backend. Your patch looks right > to me. Applied. -- Michael
Attachment
On Thursday, August 19, 2021 12:28 PM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote >On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:04:04AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Yes, that does not seem wise on performance grounds. The case of >> !zero_is_valid is never reached, so it seems like this code was just a >> copy-paste from the float code in the backend. Your patch looks right >> to me. > >Applied. Thanks for you check and commit, I've changed the patch's commit fest status to 'committed'. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/34/3287/ Regards, Tang