Re: Is it really such a good thing for newNode() to be a macro?

From: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is it really such a good thing for newNode() to be a macro?
Date: 2008-08-27 13:51:02
Message-ID: 48B55BC6.7030704@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> I happened to be looking at nodes.h and started wondering just how
> sane this coding really is:
>
> extern PGDLLIMPORT Node *newNodeMacroHolder;
>
> #define newNode(size, tag) \
> ( \
> AssertMacro((size) >= sizeof(Node)), /* need the tag, at least */ \
> newNodeMacroHolder = (Node *) palloc0fast(size), \
> newNodeMacroHolder->type = (tag), \
> newNodeMacroHolder \
> )
>
> Given that we're calling palloc, it's not clear that saving one level of
> function call is really buying much; and what it's costing us is a store
> to a global variable that the compiler has no way to optimize away.
> On a lot of platforms, accessing global variables isn't especially
> cheap. Also, considering that palloc0fast is a nontrivial macro, and
> that there are a LOT of uses of newNode(), we're paying rather a lot of
> code space for a pretty dubious savings.

Note that the MemSetLoop macro used in palloc0fast is supposed to be
evaluated at compile time, so the code space taken by that macro isn't
that big. Turning newNode into function would force it to be evaluated
at run-time instead.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-08-27 14:06:37 Re: Is it really such a good thing for newNode() to be a macro?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-08-27 13:40:56 Re: Another refactoring proposal: move stuff into nodes/nodeFuncs.[ch]