Hi, On 2018-10-17 09:38:18 +1300, Gavin Flower wrote: > On 17/10/2018 09:36, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > > Attached is a patch that shrinks fmgr_builtins by 25%. That seems > > > worthwhile, it's pretty frequently accessed, making it more dense is > > > helpful. Unless somebody protests soon, I'm going to apply that... > > Hah. I'm pretty sure that struct *was* set up with an eye to padding ... > > on 32-bit machines. This does make it shorter on 64-bit, but also > > makes the size not a power of 2, which might add a few cycles to > > array indexing calculations. Might be worth checking whether that's > > going to be an issue anywhere. > > > > What's the point of the extra const decoration on funcName? ISTM > > the whole struct should be const, or not.
> Would it be useful to add dummy variable(s) to bring it up to a power of 2? Err. Reread what we're talking about. The point was to reduce the size, it's a power of two right now (32). We could of course also just do nothing (re-add a dummy variable), which would, drumroll, do nothing. Greetings, Andres Freund
