Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 15:30 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> I'll try to set this up and see if I can get it to pass the check >> and dcheck make targets. Can we assume that the performance >> impact would be too small to matter when we know for sure that > hint bits have already been set? > > I think that's a safe assumption. If there is some kind of > noticeable difference in conflict rates or runtime, that probably > indicates a bug in the new or old code. That worked fine; passed check and dcheck targets. Here's the code: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=users/kgrittn/postgres.git;a=commitdiff;h=6360b0d4ca88c09cf590a75409cd29831afff58b With confidence that it works, I looked it over some more and now like this a lot. It is definitely more readable and should be less fragile in the face of changes to MVCC bit-twiddling techniques. Of course, any changes to the HTSV_Result enum will require changes to this code, but that seems easier to spot and fix than the alternative. Thanks for the suggestion! Having gotten my head around it, I embellished here: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=users/kgrittn/postgres.git;a=commitdiff;h=f9307a41c198a9aa4203eb529f9c6d1b55c5c6e1 Do those changes look reasonable? None of that is really *necessary*, but it seemed cleaner and clearer that way once I looked at the code with the changes you suggested. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
