| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: repeat() function, CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), and unlikely() |
| Date: | 2020-06-05 20:53:01 |
| Message-ID: | f373e4e0-bdc8-bca8-e0e6-cbcaa2e64bdc@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/4/20 5:20 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-May-28, Joe Conway wrote:
>
>> I backpatched and pushed the changes to the repeat() function. Any other
>> opinions regarding backpatch of the unlikely() addition to CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()?
>
> We don't use unlikely() in 9.6 at all, so I would stop that backpatching
> at 10 anyhow. (We did backpatch unlikely()'s definition afterwards.)
Correct you are -- thanks for the heads up! Pushed to REL_10_STABLE and later.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-06-05 21:15:14 | Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach) |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2020-06-05 20:40:57 | Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach) |