Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > > RenameStmt: > > if (stmt allows event triggers) > > ProcessSlowUtility(...); > > else > > ExecRenameStmt(stmt); > > break; > > > > while in ProcessSlowUtility it'd just look normal: > > > > RenameStmt: > > ExecRenameStmt(stmt); > > break; > > I like it globally. Do you think some inline magic needs to happen to > try and convince the compiler to process the whole thing as a single > function? My understanding is that while there's no way to require the > inlining to happen we still have some provisions to hint the compilers > wanting to listen, or something like that.
I don't see how inlining could work here. We will end up with a couple dozen calls to ProcessSlowUtility inside ProcessUtility, so inlining it will be a really poor strategy. > Do you want me to work on a patch at the end of this week? As (one of) the committer(s) responsible for this code, I do, thanks. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
