Re: repeat() function, CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), and unlikely()

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: repeat() function, CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), and unlikely()
Date: 2020-05-25 13:02:04
Message-ID: 9706845c-3b28-6643-8c26-0b129306e786@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 5/12/20 8:06 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> I was doing some memory testing under fractional CPU allocations and it became
> painfully obvious that the repeat() function needs CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS().
>
> I exchanged a few emails offlist with Tom about it, and (at the risk of putting
> words in his mouth) he agreed and felt it was a candidate for backpatching.
>
> Very small patch attached. Quick and dirty performance test:

<snip>

> While discussing the above, Tom also wondered whether we should add unlikely()
> to the CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() macro.
>
> Small patch for that also attached. I was not sure about the WIN32 stanza on
> that (to do it or not; if so, what about the UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE() test).
>
> I tested as above with unlikely() and did not see any discernible difference,
> but the added check might improve other code paths.
>
> Comments or objections?

Seeing none ... I intend to backpatch and push these two patches in the next day
or so.

Joe

--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2020-05-25 13:28:54 Re: Since '2001-09-09 01:46:40'::timestamp microseconds are lost when extracting epoch
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2020-05-25 12:17:22 Re: Trouble with hashagg spill I/O pattern and costing