From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: Re: Large writable variables
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 16:36:12 -0400
Message-ID: <26620.1539722172@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181016201145.aa2dfeq54rhqzron@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20181015200754.7y7zfuzsoux2c4ya@alap3.anarazel.de>
<31562.1539658872@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<6813.1539669540@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20181016063317.xjfd2dnlhy6tg5gx@alap3.anarazel.de>
<30245.1539699393@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20181016201145.aa2dfeq54rhqzron@alap3.anarazel.de>
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Attached is a patch that shrinks fmgr_builtins by 25%. That seems
> worthwhile, it's pretty frequently accessed, making it more dense is
> helpful. Unless somebody protests soon, I'm going to apply that...
Hah. I'm pretty sure that struct *was* set up with an eye to padding ...
on 32-bit machines. This does make it shorter on 64-bit, but also
makes the size not a power of 2, which might add a few cycles to
array indexing calculations. Might be worth checking whether that's
going to be an issue anywhere.
What's the point of the extra const decoration on funcName? ISTM
the whole struct should be const, or not.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com
Subject: Re: Large writable variables
In-Reply-To: <26620.1539722172@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox