MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20250911054220.3784-1-root@ip-172-31-36-228.ec2.internal>
 <CANWCAZYZQw-nzTXbx3Bk332VtY9_D7ksDsuMZ0A-iDZ53yG7Ng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK64mnfeWLBRbMfnOsag0vGTDnT84KJzpuei40nG0OHyw4SESw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANWCAZa1b2rcvoK657SmcKwh2P2cgASQ1D-0JPj5d3LbfaAVgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK64mneN20+sW5WhV+r7hMVo4Rd0z11B6=3L039rWMt1wK3nPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANWCAZZuS3sNgLRo8Z4AM=uY4zTmz=dH5D4Z9xV6K0CEuJ8Hdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK64mnejn9AZMYz03e7HX8Uui35PihUuOy=b+iBG=YtRKx0Log@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANWCAZZ_0AQMk1HgHXHX+JaeBfy_4kzwHgTdqMptDA7zM+nm+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK64mnc6jbehHv5AHc84tVFRJg4zeMiFuvPX9xZkRpq0210MFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANWCAZY940P3wGOQAZWMLQL4MQGGyOu7WBjBEcn_gqcrr+NvAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK64mne_oWN9d4mf+0c_5-4Emb9kRXA-OC05OJ4F_1fVqpjzDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANWCAZZcKYp+01u1QmkShfXVkUCCdxtJAgHT-61Vw0ALoWj47A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK64mne=Q_4VSpJ8f4RQB-yAThd4+i-BRYMvfdGOhvwJQdYoKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANWCAZYg2MVbYTaczNYNC2kaPodtfB8toUfE2Mhp9kut=2wzEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK64mnd9NE+xE18shrf-SSx-iwMVof=2DJ2y9_fOkQ5E2Abc5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANWCAZbjdFnBiUmrBQC5vFFy0Fnn4SJG4AkkzGpTFhovodJdYQ@mail.gmail.com> <0be1b7b05726652ea0d83e8f72fd4cfe@postgrespro.ru>
In-Reply-To: <0be1b7b05726652ea0d83e8f72fd4cfe@postgrespro.ru>
From: John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 17:35:36 +0700
Message-ID: <CANWCAZZhyyieM9LSELXTuvh1qoAY0frmcEnSh9d4KzBbahQvRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal for enabling auto-vectorization for checksum calculations
To: Oleg Tselebrovskiy <o.tselebrovskiy@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Andrew Kim <tenistarkim@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANWCAZZhyyieM9LSELXTuvh1qoAY0frmcEnSh9d4KzBbahQvRQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 3:04=E2=80=AFPM Oleg Tselebrovskiy
<o.tselebrovskiy@postgrespro.ru> wrote:

> > So in v10 I separated the body of checksum_block to
> > a semi-private header to provide hardware-specific definitions
> > for core code, while also maintaining the same one that
> > external code expects
>
> I like the usage of a semi-internal header, less code duplication
> is always good

Glad to hear it.

> If I understand correctly, with how code is currently,
> external programms can define PG_CHECKSUM_INTERNAL manually,
> but then they won't have access to static functions inside of
> checksum.c, so all you get is a pointer that leads nowhere, correct?

Sounds right, but I'm not sure why an external program would define
it, because it's named...drumroll.."internal".

> I'd like to think that speeding up checksum calculation is something
> that some external programms could appreciate.

External programs are probably doing some one-off task, so I don't see
a reason to work harder.

> Also, not moving all those checksum files to src/port saves us from
> thinking about problems with meson and current external programs,
> but, I think, that after hardware checks are refactored, we could
> revisit the question of moving checksum[_impl].h/.c to src/port.

Refactoring the hardware checks is not going to make those two
problems go away, and I don't understand why you want to move anything
to begin with.

--
John Naylor
Amazon Web Services