| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: repeat() function, CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), and unlikely() |
| Date: | 2020-05-28 17:23:46 |
| Message-ID: | f489d35f-bc53-c648-3508-84c8c83c0cfe@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/27/20 3:29 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I think that each of those tests should have a separate unlikely() marker,
>> since the whole point here is that we don't expect either of those tests
>> to yield true in the huge majority of CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS executions.
>
> +1. I am not sure that the addition of unlikely() should be
> backpatched though, that's not something usually done.
I backpatched and pushed the changes to the repeat() function. Any other
opinions regarding backpatch of the unlikely() addition to CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()?
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jesse Zhang | 2020-05-28 18:49:42 | Re: Fix compilation failure against LLVM 11 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-05-28 15:45:17 | Re: password_encryption default |