On 6/4/20 5:20 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-May-28, Joe Conway wrote:
>
>> I backpatched and pushed the changes to the repeat() function. Any other
>> opinions regarding backpatch of the unlikely() addition to
>> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()?
>
> We don't use unlikely() in 9.6 at all, so I woul
On 2020-May-28, Joe Conway wrote:
> I backpatched and pushed the changes to the repeat() function. Any other
> opinions regarding backpatch of the unlikely() addition to
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()?
We don't use unlikely() in 9.6 at all, so I would stop that backpatching
at 10 anyhow. (We did back
On 5/28/20 1:23 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 5/27/20 3:29 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> I think that each of those tests should have a separate unlikely() marker,
>>> since the whole point here is that we don't expect either of those tests
>>> to yield true in the huge majority of CHECK_FOR_INTERRUP
On 5/27/20 3:29 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I think that each of those tests should have a separate unlikely() marker,
>> since the whole point here is that we don't expect either of those tests
>> to yield true in the huge majority of CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS executions.
>
> +1. I am not sure that
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 11:14:39AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Perhaps I'm an optimist, but I think that eventually we will figure out
> how to make unlikely() work for MSVC. In the meantime we might as well
> let it work for gcc-on-Windows builds.
I am less optimistic than that, but there is hope.
Joe Conway writes:
> On 5/25/20 9:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There was some question as to what (if anything) to do with the Windows
>> version of CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS. Have you resolved that?
> Two questions.
> First, as I understand it, unlikely() is a gcc thing, so it does nothing at
> all
>
On 5/25/20 9:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway writes:
>>> Comments or objections?
>
>> Seeing none ... I intend to backpatch and push these two patches in the next
>> day
>> or so.
>
> There was some question as to what (if anything) to do with the Windows
> version of CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS.
Joe Conway writes:
>> Comments or objections?
> Seeing none ... I intend to backpatch and push these two patches in the next
> day
> or so.
There was some question as to what (if anything) to do with the Windows
version of CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS. Have you resolved that?
On 5/12/20 8:06 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> I was doing some memory testing under fractional CPU allocations and it became
> painfully obvious that the repeat() function needs CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS().
>
> I exchanged a few emails offlist with Tom about it, and (at the risk of
> putting
> words in his
I was doing some memory testing under fractional CPU allocations and it became
painfully obvious that the repeat() function needs CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS().
I exchanged a few emails offlist with Tom about it, and (at the risk of putting
words in his mouth) he agreed and felt it was a candidate for ba
10 matches
Mail list logo
