Re: Preferred use of macro GetPGProcByNumber

From: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Maksim(dot)Melnikov" <m(dot)melnikov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Preferred use of macro GetPGProcByNumber
Date: 2025-09-15 02:06:33
Message-ID: E2B04F4F-D792-4292-A978-38749662E246@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On Sep 12, 2025, at 20:39, Maksim.Melnikov <m(dot)melnikov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>
> Hello hackers,
> I've noticed some places where elements of ProcGlobal->allProcs are addressed directly via arr index.
> But in proc.h macros GetPGProcByNumber exist, that was added to get proc objects by index,
> so I suggest minor refactoring 'ProcGlobal->allProcs[index]' -> 'GetPGProcByNumber(index)'.
> Please, see attached patch, branched from rev 6ede13d1b5f.
>
> Best regards
> Melnikov Maksim
> <v1-0001-Preferred-use-of-macro-GetPGProcByNumber.patch>

For the replacements in procarray.c, there may have slight performance difference. The current version stores dereferenced “allProcs” in a local static variable, which is faster than using the macro because the macro need to dereference “allProcs” from the “ProcGlobal” every time when it is called.

In other files, they are just simple direct replacements, so they should be fine.

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2025-09-15 02:46:01 Re: Incorrect logic in XLogNeedsFlush()
Previous Message Chao Li 2025-09-15 01:49:22 Re: Fix missing EvalPlanQual recheck for TID scans