On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> As such, they could not have entries in pg_proc, so
> it seems like there's no ready way to represent them in the catalogs.
Why couldn't they be in pg_proc with a bunch of opaque arguments like
the GIST opclass support functions?
I'm a bit puzzled what the arguments would look like. They would still
need to know the collation, nulls first/last flags, etc.
And calling it would still not be inlinable. So they would have to
check those flags on each invocation instead of having a piece of
straightline code that hard codes the behaviour with the right
behaviour inline. ISTM the hope for a speedup from the inlining
mostly came from the idea that the compiler might be able to hoist
this logic outside the loop (and I suppose implement n specialized
loops depending on the behaviour needed).
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-09-21 16:13:07|
|Subject: Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-09-21 15:58:00|
|Subject: Re: BUG #6218: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(owner->nsnapshots == 0)", File: "resowner.c", Line: 365) |