Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: explain analyze timings

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org,"PostgreSQL-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: explain analyze timings
Date: 2005-03-20 22:30:20
Message-ID: 13968.1111357820@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32pgsql-patches
"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
> Here is a second attempt, hope it's closer to what you expected.

Better --- patch applied with some minor editorialization.

> I still left two #ifdefs in there, for the addition and subtraction of
> timeval:s specifically. They could be made functions/macros too, just
> not sure if it's worth it.

Probably not.  What bothers me more is the unconditional use of a
static inline function; but IIRC we are only supporting gcc-based builds
on Windows, so that probably isn't worth fixing either.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-03-20 23:08:59
Subject: Re: [patch 0/6] pgcrypto update
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2005-03-20 18:37:13
Subject: Re: explain analyze timings

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2005-03-20 23:09:03
Subject: Re: Half filled xlogs
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2005-03-20 18:37:13
Subject: Re: explain analyze timings

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group