Re: v13: Performance regression related to FORTIFY_SOURCE

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Subject: Re: v13: Performance regression related to FORTIFY_SOURCE
Date: 2020-06-06 02:06:50
Message-ID: dd4e9a4c8e7e6d2960f77f8dd509ccced332f907.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 21:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Or possibly casting the whole thing to int or unsigned int would be
> better. Point being that I bet it's int vs long that is making the
> difference.

That did it, and it's much more tolerable as a workaround. Thank you.

I haven't tested end-to-end that it solves the problem, but I'm pretty
sure it will.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2020-06-06 02:31:03 Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-06-06 01:50:53 Re: v13: Performance regression related to FORTIFY_SOURCE