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: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Date: 2020-05-25T13:02:04Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
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 mouth) he agreed and felt it was a candidate for backpatching.
> 
> Very small patch attached. Quick and dirty performance test:

<snip>

> While discussing the above, Tom also wondered whether we should add unlikely()
> to the CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() macro.
> 
> Small patch for that also attached. I was not sure about the WIN32 stanza on
> that (to do it or not; if so, what about the UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE() test).
> 
> I tested as above with unlikely() and did not see any discernible difference,
> but the added check might improve other code paths.
> 
> Comments or objections?

Seeing none ... I intend to backpatch and push these two patches in the next day
or so.

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