Re: Idea for cleaner representation of snapshots

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Idea for cleaner representation of snapshots
Date: 2007-03-25 19:09:43
Message-ID: 9112.1174849783@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> That's not really the point. The problem is that the compiler usually can't
> deduce which function you're calling or even which set of functions you might
> be calling. So, for example, the compiler will have trouble determining which
> variables may be untouched over the function call and thus not have to be
> reloaded into registers.

Well, since the functions in question are in a separate module from
their callers, I think it highly unlikely that any such optimizations
would be applied in practice anyway.

> Again though, I really don't think it matters.

Agreed, it's unlikely this would be a significant change either way.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2007-03-25 19:12:09 Re: datestyle GUC broken in HEAD?
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2007-03-25 19:04:53 Re: Idea for cleaner representation of snapshots