Re: Missing CFI in hlCover()?

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Missing CFI in hlCover()?
Date: 2020-07-30 14:37:56
Message-ID: 20200730143756.GY12375@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greetings,

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> >> We could hard-code a rule like that, or we could introduce a new
> >> explicit parameter for the maximum cover length. The latter would be
> >> more flexible, but we need something back-patchable and I'm concerned
> >> about the compatibility hazards of adding a new parameter in minor
> >> releases. So on the whole I propose hard-wiring a multiplier of,
> >> say, 10 for both these cases.
>
> > That sounds alright to me, though I do think we should probably still
> > toss a CFI (or two) in this path somewhere as we don't know how long
> > some of these functions might take...
>
> Yeah, of course. I'm still leaning to doing that in TS_execute_recurse.

Works for me.

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2020-07-30 16:21:23 Re: HyperLogLog.c and pg_leftmost_one_pos32()
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-07-30 14:37:20 Re: Missing CFI in hlCover()?