On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:21:06PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-11-19 17:16:56 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:39:19PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2013-11-19 16:37:32 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 04:34:59PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > > On 2013-11-19 10:30:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > > > I don't have an informed opinion about requiring inline support > > > > > > > (although it would surely be nice). > > > > > > > > > > > > inline is C99, and we've generally resisted requiring C99 features. > > > > > > Maybe it's time to move that goalpost, and maybe not. > > > > > > > > > > But it's a part of C99 that was very widely implemented before, so > > > > > even > > > > > if we don't want to rely on C99 in its entirety, relying on inline > > > > > support is realistic. > > > > > > > > > > I think, independent from atomics, the readability & maintainability > > > > > win > > > > > by relying on inline functions instead of long macros, potentially > > > > > with > > > > > multiple eval hazards, or contortions like ILIST_INCLUDE_DEFINITIONS > > > > > is > > > > > significant. > > > > > > > > Oh, man, my fastgetattr() macro is going to be simplified. All my good > > > > work gets rewritten. ;-) > > > > > > That and HeapKeyTest() alone are sufficient reason for this ;) > > > > Has there been any performance testing on this rewrite to use atomics? > > If so, can I missed it. > > Do you mean inline? Or atomics? If the former no, if the latter > yes. I've started on it because of > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20130926225545.GB26663%40awork2.anarazel.de
Yes, I was wondering about atomics. I think we know the performance characteristics of inlining. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
