Horton

Re: repeat() function, CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), and unlikely()

Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Date: 2020-06-04T20:48:19Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

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_INTERRUPTS executions.
>> 
>> +1.  I am not sure that the addition of unlikely() should be
>> backpatched though, that's not something usually done.
> 
> I backpatched and pushed the changes to the repeat() function. Any other
> opinions regarding backpatch of the unlikely() addition to CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()?

So far I have

 Tom +1
 Michael -1
 me +0

on backpatching the addition of unlikely() to CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS().

Assuming no one else chimes in I will push the attached to all supported
branches sometime before Tom creates the REL_13_STABLE branch on Sunday.

Joe

-- 
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

Commits

  1. Add unlikely() to CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()

  2. Add CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() to the repeat() function