From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org,Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,"pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: strange failure in plpgsql_control tests (on fulmar, ICC 14.0.3) |
Date: | 2018-03-17 19:17:48 |
Message-ID: | 31A4DF66-0AD0-4C65-B3CD-F91BC5B1598C@anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On March 17, 2018 11:32:36 AM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> On the current branch just using the new overflow safe functions in
>> int.h should work. But unless we are OK leaving this broken in the
>back
>> branches, or want to backport the functionality, that's probably not
>> sufficient.
>
>Yeah ... I don't like either of the last two things, so probably we
>should
>go with the patch as I had it. Yours might perform a shade better on
>compilers with the built-in, but it'll be a lot worse on those without.
I don't think performance is a prime driver here, or shouldn't be at least. Obviousness / grepability seem much more important. I'd vote for using my version in master, and yours in the back branches. I can do that, of you want.
I'm OK with skipping the test for now.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-03-17 19:25:57 | Re: strange failure in plpgsql_control tests (on fulmar, ICC 14.0.3) |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-03-17 18:59:29 | Re: strange failure in plpgsql_control tests (on fulmar, ICC 14.0.3) |