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

Re: explain analyze timings

From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: explain analyze timings
Date: 2005-03-21 08:49:05
Message-ID: 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE6C70F2@algol.sollentuna.se (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
> > 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.

I thought of that, and considered it a good thing to do it that way just
because of that. If we ever port it to something that doesn't support
it, we can always make it a regular function in the C file.

//Magnus

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: A. MousDate: 2005-03-23 09:57:09
Subject: Simple query takes a long time on win2K
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2005-03-20 23:09:03
Subject: Re: Half filled xlogs

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