On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 at 20:14, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > 2) On HEAD at 49d6c7d8daba: > .LVL299: > .loc 1 131 16 is_stmt 0 discriminator 1 view .LVU524 > cmpq $8192, %rbx > je .L419 > > 3) With the patch sent at [1]: > .LVL306: > .loc 3 201 23 is_stmt 1 discriminator 1 view .LVU545 > cmpq $8192, %rbx > jne .L417 > > So it does not matter one way or another for 2) or 3), does it?
The patch in [1] will fix the bug. But I'm still concerned about the performance implications of moving to byte-at-a-time processing. There are about 8 times more instructions being expected to do the same work. David > [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/zyr02ofhiwg1h...@paquier.xyz
