On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Gurjeet Singh <gurj...@singh.im> wrote: >>> Just a small patch; hopefully useful. > >> This is valid saving as we are filling array ListenSocket[] in >> StreamServerPort() serially, so during ClosePostmasterPorts() once if >> it encountered PGINVALID_SOCKET, it is valid to break the loop. >> Although savings are small considering this doesn't occur in any >> performance path, still I think this is right thing to do in code. > >> It is better to register this patch in CF app list, unless someone >> feels this is not right. > > I think this is adding fragility for absolutely no meaningful savings. > The existing code does not depend on the assumption that the array > is filled consecutively and no entries are closed early. Why should > we add such an assumption here?
+1. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
