On 12/10/2018 12:09, Andrey Klychkov wrote:
> I don't see any reasons against to use the proposed macro instead of
> this function.
Macros are weird and should be avoided if possible. If we were to do
this, it should be an inline function, I think. But I think it's not
useful here.
I think ther
=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmV5IEtseWNoa292?= writes:
>> simple_heap_insert() is used in catalog updates and such. Does that have
>> any measurable performance impact?
> I guess this change doesn't give us an incredible performance increase except
> there will no redundant function call.
> I don't see any
> simple_heap_insert() is used in catalog updates and such. Does that have
> any measurable performance impact?
I guess this change doesn't give us an incredible performance increase except
there will no redundant function call.
I don't see any reasons against to use the proposed macro instead of
On 12/10/2018 11:54, Andrey Klychkov wrote:
Studying another question I noticed a small point for optimization.
In the src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c we have the function:
- * simple_heap_insert - insert a tuple
- *
- * Currently, this routine differs from heap_insert only in supplying
- * a
Hi, Hackers
Studying another question I noticed a small point for optimization.
In the src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c we have the function:
- * simple_heap_insert - insert a tuple
- *
- * Currently, this routine differs from heap_insert only in supplying
- * a default command ID and not allowing
