| From: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> |
| Subject: | Re: slab allocator performance issues |
| Date: | 2021-07-20 14:24:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAEudQAqNVG6G3ALb2Bx9qpK0aSMxv4z7aWPJET5A-Z6r51_9gA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Em ter., 20 de jul. de 2021 às 11:15, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
escreveu:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 at 10:04, Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Perhaps you would agree with me that in the most absolute of times,
> malloc will not fail.
> > So it makes more sense to test:
> > if (ret != NULL)
> > than
> > if (ret == NULL)
>
> I think it'd be better to use unlikely() for that.
>
Sure, it can be, but in this case, there is no way to reduce the scope.
regards,
Ranier Vilela
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-07-20 14:42:23 | Re: Rename of triggers for partitioned tables |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2021-07-20 14:15:07 | Re: slab allocator performance issues |