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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
